Prediction Changes v Freo (3:15pm Sunday @ Marvel)

[threenewpadlocks]

Because simply your looking at the last 3 weeks as judgement on a second year player

In projecting future output you look at most recent form. Of course you don't throw out all form before that, but you can't ignore any form.

and what we gave up to get him and Croft like it is some evidence of a mistake by our club.

We traded up specifically to draft Sanders. The decision to do so is predicated on Sanders' output of his career. That is fair enough.

We have to treat is as a mistake because there were viable other options, involving some combination of keeping pick 12 of 2013 and our first rounder in 2024.

Sick to death of posters making out we as a club are poor, settle for medioracy, never learn from mistakes when we have never been better run on or off the field than we are now.

We've made a lot of excellent trades over recent years to become a good club now. If anything I'm the one that was arguing we were playing better than others on this board over the last 3 years. I've gotten into dumb debates that we're a top 4 team and we've been "unlucky" last four years. You don't have to convince me.

Me pointing out that we may have made one specific bad trade doesn't mean we're an overall poorly run club, it's literally just one trade, bloody hell.

I agree that Sanders needs a rest and has to show something in the VFL final next week to get back into pur AFL team. But to not acknowledge that he is getting close to being a best 22 which is what you want from a number 6 pick in a draft is simply nonsense

But I'm specifically making the comparison to Sanders earlier in the year.

For all the argument that he "needs a rest" isn't there the counterfactual argument that people put here that young players need experience, and that he's vastly more experienced now - he's doubled his games played at AFL level than when he was playing better games at the start of the season.

Why hasn't Dan Curtin for Adelaide's form dropped because "he needs a rest"? Colby McKercher? Connor O'Sullivan?

And to repeat myself, we specifically overpaid for the value of the pick 6 to draft Sanders. Even if Sanders exactly meets the expectations of pick 6 - doesn't fail to meet them, doesn't exceed them, just meets them - it would still be a bad trade, because we paid more than the value of pick 6 to reach get Sanders.

 

[DiamondDogs8]

I think Sanders being moved from the HFF to the wing killed a lot of momentum in his season.

Hope comes back firing after a strong pre season. Certainly needs to elect to kick more often than he does now. Fair call to drop him after a few quiet weeks, but wish McNeil and VDM were treated the same.

Let’s not forget he was averaging 20 and a goal in the first few months of the season. There’s a player there but will need to round out his game to break meaningful midfield minutes. Can see Tassie coming hard and fast, and no that was not an innuendo.

Go well Arty, hopefully he can find some continuation in his footy.

 

[maddog37]

In projecting future output you look at most recent form. Of course you don't throw out all form before that, but you can't ignore any form.

We traded up specifically to draft Sanders. The decision to do so is predicated on Sanders' output of his career. That is fair enough.

We have to treat is as a mistake because there were viable other options, involving some combination of keeping pick 12 of 2013 and our first rounder in 2024.

We've made a lot of excellent trades over recent years to become a good club now. If anything I'm the one that was arguing we were playing better than others on this board over the last 3 years. I've gotten into dumb debates that we're a top 4 team and we've been "unlucky" last four years. You don't have to convince me.

Me pointing out that we may have made one specific bad trade doesn't mean we're an overall poorly run club, it's literally just one trade, bloody hell.


But I'm specifically making the comparison to Sanders earlier in the year.

For all the argument that he "needs a rest" isn't there the counterfactual argument that people put here that young players need experience, and that he's vastly more experienced now - he's doubled his games played at AFL level than when he was playing better games at the start of the season.

Why hasn't Dan Curtin for Adelaide's form dropped because "he needs a rest"? Colby McKercher? Connor O'Sullivan?

And to repeat myself, we specifically overpaid for the value of the pick 6 to draft Sanders. Even if Sanders exactly meets the expectations of pick 6 - doesn't fail to meet them, doesn't exceed them, just meets them - it would still be a bad trade, because we paid more than the value of pick 6 to reach get Sanders.

 

[Proffessor]

While I'm not happy from a Dogs supporting perspective for Sanders drop of form, it does put into context some of the victory laps myself and people were taking here early in the season re Sanders.

Especially the premium price we paid to trade up to specifically target him. (Pick 10, 17 and a future first which is another late teens pick, though we got back two picks to match Croft bid to the value of an early 30's pick, though it's not worth that as a live pick). Many were defensive about this because they said you can't value it from an abstract sense of pick 6, we were only making that trade for Sanders so you have to judge Sanders on that merit. Sanders' form is not yet matching the average expectation of a pick 6, let alone exceeding it (what would be required for that trade to be good), so it looks poor as it stands.

Most of the speculation at the time was that we traded up to get Watson. Who was taken by Hawthorn with the pick in front of ours. Only after the draft did people suggest Sanders was our target all along.

 

[manutd/dogs]

F*cking lol

 

[fargy]

F*cking lol

View attachment 2403767

There’s a bit of desperation coming from the west, from their coach to their local rag.

 

[Deadly Darcy]

In projecting future output you look at most recent form. Of course you don't throw out all form before that, but you can't ignore any form.

We traded up specifically to draft Sanders. The decision to do so is predicated on Sanders' output of his career. That is fair enough.

We have to treat is as a mistake because there were viable other options, involving some combination of keeping pick 12 of 2013 and our first rounder in 2024.

We've made a lot of excellent trades over recent years to become a good club now. If anything I'm the one that was arguing we were playing better than others on this board over the last 3 years. I've gotten into dumb debates that we're a top 4 team and we've been "unlucky" last four years. You don't have to convince me.

Me pointing out that we may have made one specific bad trade doesn't mean we're an overall poorly run club, it's literally just one trade, bloody hell.


But I'm specifically making the comparison to Sanders earlier in the year.

For all the argument that he "needs a rest" isn't there the counterfactual argument that people put here that young players need experience, and that he's vastly more experienced now - he's doubled his games played at AFL level than when he was playing better games at the start of the season.

Why hasn't Dan Curtin for Adelaide's form dropped because "he needs a rest"? Colby McKercher? Connor O'Sullivan?

And to repeat myself, we specifically overpaid for the value of the pick 6 to draft Sanders. Even if Sanders exactly meets the expectations of pick 6 - doesn't fail to meet them, doesn't exceed them, just meets them - it would still be a bad trade, because we paid more than the value of pick 6 to reach get Sanders.

Every club makes a mistake with a tip 10 selection at some point. He was an excellent junior - just doesn’t seem to have to speed of awareness to ever become elite at AFL level. Then again Davies-Uniake looked like a bust for 3-4 years until he had a breakout moment. Sanders isn’t the only one to struggle with the transistion and he won’t be the last. Right now I’d very happily ship him off to Tassie if we can get the right compensation for him - some sort of top 10 pick in 2027. I’d rather give our recruiters another roll of the dice if the opportunity arises. I also don’t see Sanders as a fit for our team at the moment (needs to be a primary inside mid) and he’s definately not looking like being at the level of say Watson at Hawthorn. It’s looking likely a failed trade/draft outcome but at least we have outs! Croft also looks like he could be far better than I had anticipated so it’s overall probably not a bad draft year compared to say the JUH one at this point!

 

[fargy]

Probably a tad early to write off a guy that’s played 22 games for us this year in his second year.

 

[stefoid]

And to repeat myself, we specifically overpaid for the value of the pick 6 to draft Sanders. Even if Sanders exactly meets the expectations of pick 6 - doesn't fail to meet them, doesn't exceed them, just meets them - it would still be a bad trade, because we paid more than the value of pick 6 to reach get Sanders.

If Sanders moves back to tassie and we get some kind of mid 1st rounder back for him after 4 years of development, then it was a bad decision.

If Sanders stays but doesnt turn into a consistently good player, then we stuffed up.

But I dont agree that we overpaid because of a mismatch in the theoretical value of draft pick points. The goal is to get great players onto the list and ...up to a sensible point... the cost of doing that is irrelevant.

 

[Pencil case]

Sanders is a gun, I’d do that trade ten times over in a heartbeat.

 

[Bald]

Artie averages 7 possies per game. Sanders had 6 in one quarter as sub last week

Sanders had six disposals and not much else from 30% TOG after an ordinary fortnight.

Deserved omission imo.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Sanders had six disposals and not much else from 30% TOG after an ordinary fortnight.

Deserved omission imo.

2 FA and all 6 touches were handball ie not offering value by driving the ball forward with effective kicks.

Even with a limited sample size it shouldn't be that strange to say he was exceptionally poor? And that's before you even put in the weak opposition context. It should be theoretically easier to get gaudy stats in those games because most of the team did.

 

[lachy]

2 FA and all 6 touches were handball ie not offering value by driving the ball forward with effective kicks.

Even with a limited sample size it shouldn't be that strange to say he was exceptionally poor? And that's before you even put in the weak opposition context. It should be theoretically easier to get gaudy stats in those games because most of the team did.

FFS using the stats last week as a sample size amd then saying he was exceptionally poor is exceptionally poor from a supporter. Outsode of Bont, Richards and Libba no other mid got over 20 possessions for the entire game.

You don't like the trade to get him, thats fine your choice, but in the prior 17 games the kid averaged 20 disposals and kicked 11 goals with an average of 4 tackles a game and had 89 contested possessions in his second season.

He dropped off for 2 games one of which he still had 9 contested possessions and you are saying one or two others did not.

Your really embarrassing yourself now. Not many here are arguing he should not have been dropped but you are going way further than that

 

[Golden_6]

While I'm not happy from a Dogs supporting perspective for Sanders drop of form, it does put into context some of the victory laps myself and people were taking here early in the season re Sanders.

Especially the premium price we paid to trade up to specifically target him. (Pick 10, 17 and a future first which is another late teens pick, though we got back two picks to match Croft bid to the value of an early 30's pick, though it's not worth that as a live pick). Many were defensive about this because they said you can't value it from an abstract sense of pick 6, we were only making that trade for Sanders so you have to judge Sanders on that merit. Sanders' form is not yet matching the average expectation of a pick 6, let alone exceeding it (what would be required for that trade to be good), so it looks poor as it stands.

If we don’t make that trade, then we don’t have Freijah.

That always has to be included when discussing the deal.

 

[Fossie 32]

Hard to have much impact while you’re on the bench . Just on a form basis I wouldn’t be dropping him, especially in exchange for Artie who has a way lower displayed ceiling but hope he goes well … Maybe he’s carrying a niggle, who knows

 

[Doggies7]

Most of the speculation at the time was that we traded up to get Watson. Who was taken by Hawthorn with the pick in front of ours. Only after the draft did people suggest Sanders was our target all along.

Hmm that's not entirely true. We loved Watson sure, but immediately after the trade there were articles suggesting the trade up was for whoever of Watson or Sanders fell through to us. The recruiters have a fair idea of how the top 10 looks like shaking out from a decent way back, and Cal's Phantom draft in September before the trade and then in Oct after the trade both had Watson going before Sanders (to the eventual Hawks pick).

I'm sure we would have grabbed Watson if he slipped through, but I'm sure in Power's mind the trade up was to grab Sanders knowing he is 95% likely to be there at that selection and Watson gone.

Article straight after the trade linking us to Watson and Sanders -

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1051386...-pick-no4-from-gold-coast-suns-in-first-trade

 

[Bald Headed Flog]

While I'm not happy from a Dogs supporting perspective for Sanders drop of form, it does put into context some of the victory laps myself and people were taking here early in the season re Sanders.

Especially the premium price we paid to trade up to specifically target him. (Pick 10, 17 and a future first which is another late teens pick, though we got back two picks to match Croft bid to the value of an early 30's pick, though it's not worth that as a live pick). Many were defensive about this because they said you can't value it from an abstract sense of pick 6, we were only making that trade for Sanders so you have to judge Sanders on that merit. Sanders' form is not yet matching the average expectation of a pick 6, let alone exceeding it (what would be required for that trade to be good), so it looks poor as it stands.

I think your expectations of a Pick 6 might be a tad skewed by the fact our previous Pick 6, Jack Macrae, had an unusually fast rise. His second year was one of the most extraordinarily good seasons by a young player I’ve ever seen, in contrast to Sanders who started the season well but tapered off as it progressed.

Give him time. He’s already played 35 games in his first two years. By the end of next year, we’ll have a much better view of what type and quality of player he’ll be.

 

[_Cerberus_]

Sanders will be fine. I think it's a structural decision as much as it's a form one. We have to many players of his type, and we have been trying to accomdate them all. Croft, Jones and Davidson are more natural forward and wing based players.

 

[TiAn_]

Other than his early season goal kicking, Sanders doesn’t have much hurt factor. He has ostensibly been in an outside role all season, but has played it like an inside mid and handballs 2/3 of the time. E.g. he’s 6th at the club for handball receives per game, but not even in the top 20 for kicks or metres gained per game. He has the lowest metres per disposal of all 36 players that have played a game for us this year.

Here’s a recent example where his reluctance to drive us forward by foot resulted in a poor decision, a wasted scoring opportunity and a costly turnover:

View attachment ScreenRecording_08-23-2025 03-01-13_1.mov

We’ve tried to find a role for him for two years and the results have been patchy. I said when we drafted him that he had no obvious role in the senior team for a few years. But we’ve taken the Ed Richards

20

Ed Richards

Age

26

Ht

188cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.4

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.5

3star

T

2.4

4star

CL

0.7

3star

D

11.3

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

5.3

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

2.5

3star

CL

1.1

3star

D

14.6

4star

K

9.8

4star

HB

4.8

4star

M

4.8

5star

T

2.6

4star

CL

0.2

2star

approach and wedged him into the side where we can to get games into him.
He was doing enough for most of the season by being a useful link in chains and kicking a few goals. But his involvements have tapered off recently and when you’re not getting it much as a wingman or half forward you need your possessions to be impactful. Sanders’ aren’t.

 

[Brass Dog]

I'd like to think we'd get an impactful game from Jones but I'm not optimistic. On recent VFL form his bursts have been good but not convinced about his whole game involvement. Had Dolan been fit and available I'd much prefer him. Happy to admit my doubts were misplaced if Arty makes a good contribution.

Unbelievable Jones finish steals back the lead

Arty Jones shows all his skills with a sensational snap on the run

www.afl.com.au

Arty has the tools to be our super sub. Come on late with leg speed to get involved in a few goals. Like that Carlton match last year.

 

[dogwatch]

If we don’t make that trade, then we don’t have Freijah.

That always has to be included when discussing the deal.

No it doesn’t. That’s faulty logic. It’s a totally separate decision, and was also subject to many other factors.

Unless you subscribe to chaos theory that everything is causally linked. A kind of cosmic sliding doors. Like … if a butterfly in the Amazon hadn’t flapped its wings in a certain way in 2013 StKilda would have drafted the Bont and we’d have ended up with Billings.

 

[bresker]

Arty is not taking Sanders place, its not like for like.
Arty is replacing VDM/McNeil/Poulter.
Sanders can't yet replace the inside mids, and his outside game isn't enough to keep him in the midfield rotations.

 

[Pencil case]

I wonder if Sanders would be good at half back? His vision to find players in a better position is second to none, strong aerial game, and would encourage him to kick it more.

Obviously he’s better up the ground due to his accurate i50 kicking and goal sense, but might be a good option to help him find a bit of form again.

Obviously this would be more for next year if he’s in a similar position with Libba going around again, it’s too late in the season to experiment now.

 

[stefoid]

Other than his early season goal kicking, Sanders doesn’t have much hurt factor. He has ostensibly been in an outside role all season, but has played it like an inside mid and handballs 2/3 of the time. E.g. he’s 6th at the club for handball receives per game, but not even in the top 20 for kicks or metres gained per game. He has the lowest metres per disposal of all 36 players that have played a game for us this year.

Here’s a recent example where his reluctance to drive us forward by foot resulted in a poor decision, a wasted scoring opportunity and a costly turnover:

View attachment 2404118

We’ve tried to find a role for him for two years and the results have been patchy. I said when we drafted him that he had no obvious role in the senior team for a few years. But we’ve taken the Ed Richards approach and wedged him into the side where we can to get games into him.
He was doing enough for most of the season by being a useful link in chains and kicking a few goals. But his involvements have tapered off recently and when you’re not getting it much as a wingman or half forward you need your possessions to be impactful. Sanders’ aren’t.

yeah, a couple of our lads with poor decision making there. Why the hell vander who was jogging next to a melbourne player was asking for the ball??? Sanders lacked the experience/common sense to ignore a senior teammate in a bad position.

Why didnt Baker continue running in support after giving off the handball? hes standing flat footed admiring his handywork while the bloke who was on his mark immediately applies pressure and ultimately gets the ball back. If he continues to run down the boundary line, he either gets the ball back, or 19 has to cover him.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Long term view (I know let’s win first) is that this opens up the path for Treloar to come in for one of Baker, McNeil and Jones.