Analysis 2017 Non-Crows Discussion Thread - Part V for Vendetta

[Elite Crow]

Hinkley reminds me of Sanderson. Just because he's better with a strong no.2 doesn't mean he can't coach

Means you have to give him a strong no.2

He's not a good enough coach to fix that mess and if there is a strong no 2 out there that can carry him, make him no 1.

 

[Sanders]

He's not a good enough coach to fix that mess and if there is a strong no 2 out there that can carry him, make him no 1.

Big difference between being a good no.2 and a no.1

 

[pirate bob]

Director of coaching...

I'm curious about Craig. He has now spent time at Melbourne, Essendon and Carlton. Reasonably short contracts. Clearly Melbourne moved him on when Roos came on board. I imagine Essendon probably utilised him from a perspective of compliance with their sport science program. Imagine Worsfold didn't need him either. And then Carlton?

Was he not good fit for any of them, or did they just no longer need him? Or any other particular reasons he didn't stay on?

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Did anybody hear Grant Thomas on Fiveaa?

He is certainly unpredictable I'll give him that.
Said the free kick to Shuey was wrong. Said afl is controlling the game more and more every year.
Then asked about the Crows going to the Gold Coast.
He then replied it's a master-stroke!

Sent from my SM-T355Y using Tapatalk

If Grant Thomas didn't say stupid s**t, he wouldn't get a gig on 5aa. Best to ignore him.

 

[Sanders]

I'm curious about Craig. He has now spent time at Melbourne, Essendon and Carlton. Reasonably short contracts. Clearly Melbourne moved him on when Roos came on board. I imagine Essendon probably utilised him from a perspective of compliance with their sport science program. Imagine Worsfold didn't need him either. And then Carlton?

Was he not good fit for any of them, or did they just no longer need him? Or any other particular reasons he didn't stay on?

The game moved past him 10 years ago.

 

[arrowman]

Yes he does. Too bad he's wrong about Shuey's magnificent free kick.


If it was R Gray who was slung by the neck, would Port flogs and idiot Rowe be screaming it was no free?

"Slung by the neck" being key. Yes it was a shrug by Shuey. But the followup sling was the clincher, IMO.

 

[Pea Nut]

Already noise about Richmond having to potentially wear their clash strip in the Grand Final. Talk about getting ahead of yourselves.

 

[Geoffa32]

They are immensely heavy to drive

But the roar... oh that roar

Yeah I struggle with the daily drive in the city...... good for the forearms though.. .



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[footy4ever]

"Slung by the neck" being key. Yes it was a shrug by Shuey. But the followup sling was the clincher, IMO.

Exactly. Polec had the chance to not complete the tackle by forcefully slinging Shuey by the neck. I was about to say I can understand people arguing it was not a free kick, but nah, I can't, it's a free all day everyday.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I see Ports worldwide search for Burgess's successor brought in a number of talented candidates from professional leagues across the world, but low and behold, the best man for the job was in house.

Whodathunk?

 

[hey shorty]

I see Ports worldwide search for Burgess's successor brought in a number of talented candidates from professional leagues across the world, but low and behold, the best man for the job was in house.

Whodathunk?

With the cap on spending this will happen a lot more.

 

[MarcusP2]

"Slung by the neck" being key. Yes it was a shrug by Shuey. But the followup sling was the clincher, IMO.

It was an arm tackle that was easily broken by the shrug. Polec's option then was to let go (at which point Shuey gets away, but there is another Port player right there) or bring him down high and hope he doesn't give a free kick away.

 

[Pea Nut]

With the cap on spending this will happen a lot more.

Especially when your club is broke !!

 

[subaru]

It was an arm tackle that was easily broken by the shrug. Polec's option then was to let go (at which point Shuey gets away, but there is another Port player right there) or bring him down high and hope he doesn't give a free kick away.

I wondered all along why he didn't just let go.

Either way

It's hilarious
5 days later and they're still bitching

I reckon that even beats Right In Front Of Me Guy.

 

[Deaneus!]

I see Ports worldwide search for Burgess's successor brought in a number of talented candidates from professional leagues across the world, but low and behold, the best man for the job was in house.

Whodathunk?

Used to happen to us a lot too

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Used to happen to us a lot too

What do you mean? Nigel Smart was genuinely the best candidate for the role of Chief Bald Smug s**t Stirrer

 

[GrommoT]

So you would be happy with pick 10, that could balloon out to 13 or 14 with academy picks and pick 15 thst could balloon out to 18 or 19?
I want something concrete that we know we have. I don't like the uncertainty of that pick.

Quite often, someone writes something just like you have, that "... pick 10, that could balloon out to 13 or 14 with academy picks ...".

That may well be numerically correct, but ... that demoted pick 13 is still the 10th pick among the set of NOT UNTOUCHABLE draftable players available at pick 10 originally.

The value of the initial pick 10 does not change because of academy (or F-S) picks!

By an UNTOUCHABLE player, I mean a highly talented academy/F-S player that the corresponding club will not let go and definitely draft even if it has to match a pick 1 to do so, and it has the right to do so. This in effect means that player cannot be drafted by other clubs, so is untouchable.

As an example, suppose in a draft:
() Players pA, pB, pC, ... pW, pX, pY, pZ, ... and others are available to draft
() pX is a very talented Sydney Academy player they wont let go
() pY is a very talented GWS Academy player they wont let go
() pZ is a very talented Geelong F-S player they wont let go
() pA, pB, ... pW are in decreasing talent order (according to draft "experts")

If we use the 2016 initial draft order for example, let's focus on the group of first 5 players pA..pE say.

Spoiler: . 2016 Pre-Draft Order - First Round .

1. Essendon
2. Brisbane
3. Fremantle
4. Gold Coast
5. Carlton
6. Richmond
7. Collingwood
8. Melbourne
9. Port Adelaide
10. St Kilda
11. North Melbourne
12. West Coast
13. Adelaide
14. Hawthorn
15. GWS
16. Geelong
17. Sydney
18. Western Bulldogs

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-25/indicative-2016-afl-draft-order

Ess bids on pX but Syd matches the bid, then Ess bids on pY but GWS matches the bid, then Ess bids on pZ but Gee matches the bid, and finally Ess bids on pA successfully.

So at this stage, the picks are: 1. pX (Syd), 2. pY (GWS), 3. pZ (Gee) and 4. pA (Ess)

So Ess' first pick ends up being pick 4 but the choice of available players was still out of the first 5 NOT UNTOUCHABLE players pA-->pE, I argue the value of Ess' pick 1 does not change due to academy (or F-S) picks.

Similarly, assuming players are picked according to the list order, Freo with pre-draft pick 3 would have a choice of players pC-->pG and after the matched bids, Freo would have pick 6 but guess what, they still have the choice to pick from pC-->pG (and others, of course).

So again, the value of Freo's pick 3 does not change due to academy (or F-S) picks.

What does it matter to Ess or Freo that their pick 1 and pick 3 were demoted to pick 4 and pick 6?

WHEN IT GOES WRONG ___ [Ed. 20170925]
One way that this myth is not a myth is when clubs don't keep the clubs with talented Academy/F-S prospects honest by failing to make bids on those untouchable players before it's too late.

If we use the 2016 draft as an example again, let's suppose Carlton has a very talented player pV that they would match even a bid at pick 1.

If things happen the way it should, one of Ess, Bris, Freo or Gold Coast should have made a bid for player pV before Calrton's pick at 5. If none of these club did make a bid on pV, then when Carlton gets to make their choice at pick 5, they could draft from what remains of players pA-->pE instead of pV, and still be assured of being able to pick player pV at a later pick.

This in effect gives Carlton an extra first round draft pick, and does in fact affect the value of draft picks after pick 5. If clubs are smart, they should not allow Carlton to get a bonus pick in this way.

The problem is that the clubs with picks before Carlton also have to rate player pV as worthy of being drafted at a pick before pick 5, in this example, otherwise Carlton would able to get away with delaying pick their player pV at a later pick.

This effect becomes less of an issue in later picks as things become a bit hit and miss anyway.

 

[GrommoT]

Our 5th non crows discussion thread?

View attachment 415831

All Largely because non-crows gameday posts are in this thread as well.

 

[Pea Nut]

I thought I would go check out that Trade Shouter twitter page again. Gee, all that bloke does is post on twitter. Thing runs flat out. Anyway, Kane Kornes thought it would be a good idea to compare Stringer's stats directly to Betts' stats after 5 years, and then state "we'll take him". Trade Shouter decided to put him in his place. Stated categorically that Stringer won't leave Melbourne, and according to another tweet by Nixon, deal might be a fair way along with one specific club. Obviously wasn't going to name the club. Shouter also posted that there is now a big squeeze at GWS. Pretty fair assumption to make I guess if the rumours that Kelly has re-signed are true. Don't know who that means they will lose, but he is suggesting that someone is on the move.

 

[Vhaluus]

I thought I would go check out that Trade Shouter twitter page again. Gee, all that bloke does is post on twitter. Thing runs flat out. Anyway, Kane Kornes thought it would be a good idea to compare Stringer's stats directly to Betts' stats after 5 years, and then state "we'll take him". Trade Shouter decided to put him in his place. Stated categorically that Stringer won't leave Melbourne, and according to another tweet by Nixon, deal might be a fair way along with one specific club. Obviously wasn't going to name the club. Shouter also posted that there is now a big squeeze at GWS. Pretty fair assumption to make I guess if the rumours that Kelly has re-signed are true. Don't know who that means they will lose, but he is suggesting that someone is on the move.

Seems an odd move to compare him to Betts when according to Kornes Wingard is the better small forward anyway.

 

[Ratkins]

Quite often, someone writes something just like you have, that "... pick 10, that could balloon out to 13 or 14 with academy picks ...".

That may well be numerically correct, but ... that demoted pick 13 is still the 10th pick among the set of NOT UNTOUCHABLE draftable players available at pick 10 originally.

The value of the initial pick 10 does not change because of academy (or F-S) picks!

By an UNTOUCHABLE player, I mean a highly talented academy/F-S player that the corresponding club will not let go and definitely draft even if it has to match a pick 1 to do so, and it has the right to do so. This in effect means that player cannot be drafted by other clubs, so is untouchable.

As an example, suppose in a draft:
() Players pA, pB, pC, ... pW, pX, pY, pZ, ... and others are available to draft
() pX is a very talented Sydney Academy player they wont let go
() pY is a very talented GWS Academy player they wont let go
() pZ is a very talented Geelong F-S player they wont let go
() pA, pB, ... pW are in decreasing talent order (according to draft "experts")

If we use the 2016 initial draft order for example, let's focus on the group of first 5 players pA..pE say.

Ess bids on pX but Syd matches the bid, then Ess bids on pY but GWS matches the bid, then Ess bids on pZ but Gee matches the bid, and finally Ess bids on pA successfully.

So at this stage, the picks are: 1. pX (Syd), 2. pY (GWS), 3. pZ (Gee) and 4. pA (Ess)

So Ess' first pick ends up being pick 4 but the choice of available players was still out of the first 5 NOT UNTOUCHABLE players pA-->pE, I argue the value of Ess' pick 1 does not change due to academy (or F-S) picks.

Similarly, assuming players are picked according to the list order, Freo with pre-draft pick 3 would have a choice of players pC-->pG and after the matched bids, Freo would have pick 6 but guess what, they still have the choice to pick from pC-->pG (and others, of course).

So again, the value of Freo's pick 3 does not change due to academy (or F-S) picks.

What does it matter to Ess or Freo that their pick 1 and pick 3 were demoted to pick 4 and pick 6?

Spoiler: . 2016 First Round Draft .

1. Essendon
2. Brisbane
3. Fremantle
4. Gold Coast
5. Carlton
6. Richmond
7. Collingwood
8. Melbourne
9. Port Adelaide
10. St Kilda
11. North Melbourne
12. West Coast
13. Adelaide
14. Hawthorn
15. GWS
16. Geelong
17. Sydney
18. Western Bulldogs

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-25/indicative-2016-afl-draft-order

Still don't want pick 10 from Melbourne. Single figures draft pick please.

 

[Pea Nut]

Seems an odd move to compare him to Betts when according to Kornes Wingard is the better small forward anyway.

Hahaha, do you have a Twitter account ?? You should go point that out !!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I see Ports worldwide search for Burgess's successor brought in a number of talented candidates from professional leagues across the world, but low and behold, the best man for the job was in house.

Whodathunk?

Surely they could have found a guru from China?

 

[StonesThrow]

Already noise about Richmond having to potentially wear their clash strip in the Grand Final. Talk about getting ahead of yourselves.

The same as crows fans planning for the gf? Why can't you talk about a hypothetical that is a good chance of happening in only a couple of weeks?

 

[Vhaluus]

Hahaha, do you have a Twitter account ?? You should go point that out !!

Nah I'm too long winded for twitter, feel free to steal it and let him know if you like.