List Mgmt. 2020 List Management

[Gethelred]

Interesting how the commentators repeatedly said tonight that our biggest problem is our ball movement and transition inside forward 50.

Never at any stage did they say our #1 priority is a small forward.

Also note the commentators really rate Fisher as a small forward.

We should be avoiding Papley at all costs. Where was he when the game was on the line. Absolutely nowhere!

Regardless of whatever we do, I manifestly do not want us basing our decisions on what the commentary boxes think we should do.

 

[HARKER]

Good small forwards mean it is less important how the ball enters 50. Did we crumb a pack all night?
I really like Fisher, but he's not enough. And I'm hopeful for Owies, but there's no way we can rest our hope on him yet.
We are severely lacking small forwards who can pressure the opposition in the most meaningful way, which is kicking goals, particularly from the crumb.

If you can find another good one who wants to come to us and would be cheaper than Papley, by all means make a suggestion. But it is not simply a midfield issue.

I trust that our List Management team don't flip-flop the way we can here.
One week we need this...next week we need that...

That's understandable as supporters, but the club knows what it needs and has done so for some time now.
Don't expect the unexpected....we'd be disappointed.

 

[Madblue]

Hi

Dont get too carried away buddy one good game doesnt make a season in my eyes but maybe for you it does ?

 

[BigFrizz36]

not sure why they rate fish. Still a woeful kick...

I syspect that its because he's a bloody good footballer with heaps of upside and creativity. He's an excellent kick although not so good on the right which might be the one that you are trying to taint him with. Probably the only bloke on our list that could kick that all important first goal that got us going last night.

 

[Stamos]

Would not be tidy, but I would prefer the AFL adopt a figure to reach by say 2022. Lists are too varied, clubs are at different stages. We have some
highly promising kids that would be potentially cut prematurely due to keeping a semblance of experience that would be phased out within a couple of
years.

Gold Coast has a monster list numbers wise and should not have to cut to the bone. The AFL should set monetary limits for this year and allow flexibility in
numbers. Clubs should be able to reduce by a couple or by the ultimate target of six or so at such short notice. Many posters are enjoying the offerings of Cottrell, Polson and Owies, massive list cuts would severely threaten these lesser skilled, heart and soul types against some of the first years or a developing KPP like BSOS (or even Finbar, who is better than most think, despite being a 'tweener) I want skilled Honey, Philp, Ramsay, Phillips types retained. A year
long "grace period" dropping, say three overall would be sensible.

Agree, and the clubs seem to be pushing against big cuts.

That said, the proposal in that tweet (40+2) means you are essentially only cutting 2 rookies from the lists. Sure, we've got 46, but that's with Moore as an injury replacement and Owies as Cat B.

 

[Bryce Bubbles]

I syspect that its because he's a bloody good footballer with heaps of upside and creativity. He's an excellent kick although not so good on the right which might be the one that you are trying to taint him with. Probably the only bloke on our list that could kick that all important first goal that got us going last night.

You are correct.

 

[bluegrass]

You’re right it doesn’t, I guess I was getting a bit upset with the angst directed at one particular kid...and he really does seem like a really good kid.

Speaking to a former Carlton great recently (+150 games) - I was shocked when he said that he probably wouldn’t (be able to) play today’s football. Not because of the speed, fitness (and he was a great footballer) required etc, but because of the pressure. Not club pressure or match pressure, but external pressure, the media, the trolls, the couch coaches. He said he’s already seen many a brilliant player ruined because of this.

Yes these players are rewarded handsomely. Yes, it’s up to them to deal with this, but at some point it becomes more than football if you have not only BF and professional trolls like Kyane Kyornes, but even the AFL website (which you might think has some kind of responsibility towards its players) sledging them ceaselessly. I woudnt be surprised if such trolls aren’t emboldened and enabled by comments on forums like this. No other generation has had to deal with the toxic slime that the internet produces

I think we should remember how easy it is to be a keyboard warrior (sitting on our arses, roaring advice at the best athletes in the country) and that if we wouldn’t say it to the players face, we probably shouldn’t say it.

If I sound like I’m preaching, I’m sorry. I’m pretty sure I’m being hypocritical, guilty of the same thing.

Anyway, peace.

Dont get too carried away buddy one good game doesnt make a season in my eyes but maybe for you it does ?

 

[Eiffel 65]

How do you figure?

Based on what we traded.

We had the assets to retain pick #13 which was on-traded to Adelaide had we of used one of our 3rd's instead of theirs.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Well looks like I’m one of the last one’s on the full steam ahead to get Papley train. I think we underestimate how much difference getting a hard tag or the equivalent is. Even look at Martin now he seems to be getting more attention can’t seem to hit the scoreboard. Cripps only two really big games off the top of my head this year have been Richmond and Geelong when he didn’t have an opponent. Has been beaten or ineffective in nearly the majority of games when teams put a lot of work into him, and he is one of the best players in the entire league. Doc went from dominating and looking like the best HB in the game early in the year and as soon as they start putting a lot of effort into him his game drops off hugely.
even with the attention he gets, like Cripps and Doc he is still a good player. If he is in a Carlton jumper next year and is getting that tyPe of attention then good luck containing Martin, McKay and Curnow. It’ll also mean guys like Fisher continue to get very little attention.

 

[Stamos]

Based on what we traded.

We had the assets to retain pick #13 which was on-traded to Adelaide had we of used one of our 3rd's instead of theirs.

We never had #13.
We had #26 and #28. The Crows traded those picks and another 3rd rounder (#40!) to the Swans for #13.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Their ball movement was fantastic for during the first quarter. That doesn’t exactly benefit an opportunistic small forward though. They were hitting up leads and taking contested marks. By the end of the game our disposal efficiency was 68%, not a considerable sifference

I think the +16 inside 50s and our absolute forward half dominance paints a clearer picture. 80% of Papley’s disposals we’re outside 50, Fisher’s was closer to a 50/50 split and in the end he actually got more footy inside 50.

I recommend having a look at the heat maps of not only Fish and Papley but also both teams. Really shows how inefficient we were.

I personally attribute Papley's lack of goals to Plowman.

Papley has been quite poor now since round 8. No secrets there and if everyone is being honest around here, they'll actually acknowledge that.

I've seen the heat maps and watched the game.

The reality is everyone is saying we need a crumbing and pressure forward. I haven't seen Papley do much of that all year.

He kicked 19 goals in 8 rounds as a pseudo full forward (the primary target), not as a small forward. That's not the role we'll be using him for and it's not the role he's currently playing which has seen him kick 3 goals since round 8.

Also, we should be aiming for slick ball movement. If we're getting Papley because of our terrible ball movement heading inside forward 50, it's not a vote of confidence for the club. We should be rectifying the issue at the source. Sydney are 15th on the ladder. If they can have excellent ball movement forward of centre, why can't we?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Based on what we traded.

We had the assets to retain pick #13 which was on-traded to Adelaide had we of used one of our 3rd's instead of theirs.

I don’t think we had one.

 

[Madblue]

You’re right it doesn’t, I guess I was getting a bit upset with the angst directed at one particular kid...and he really does seem like a really good kid.

Speaking to a former Carlton great recently (+150 games) - I was shocked when he said that he probably wouldn’t (be able to) play today’s football. Not because of the speed, fitness (and he was a great footballer) required etc, but because of the pressure. Not club pressure or match pressure, but external pressure, the media, the trolls, the couch coaches. He said he’s already seen many a brilliant player ruined because of this.

Yes these players are rewarded handsomely. Yes, it’s up to them to deal with this, but at some point it becomes more than football if you have not only BF and professional trolls like Kyane Kyornes, but even the AFL website (which you might think has some kind of responsibility towards its players) sledging them ceaselessly. I woudnt be surprised if such trolls aren’t emboldened and enabled by comments on forums like this. No other generation has had to deal with the toxic slime that the internet produces

I think we should remember how easy it is to be a keyboard warrior (sitting on our arses, roaring advice at the best athletes in the country) and that if we wouldn’t say it to the players face, we probably shouldn’t say it.

If I sound like I’m preaching, I’m sorry. I’m pretty sure I’m being hypocritical, guilty of the same thing.

Anyway, peace.

Thanks for the heads up !

 

[Eiffel 65]

But you are looking at this the wrong way and need to consider the alrenative , How many more young players does Carlton need ? How much longer do you continue on the build ? When does players like Cripps start playing finals ? How long does young talent remain whilst still stocking up on talent ?

It gets to a stage before you know it these players get restless and other clubs come calling and for Carlton to hold these players the dream of playing finals and winning flags need to be within reach before they get disillusioned.

Papley is not 'Just' a small foward he has ability to play up the ground and plays high getting involved and effectively runs through the midfield in a way, Also has the talent and ability to kick 40+ goals a year in a regular season.

From where i sit i see carlton in a very similar position to Richmond 2016 , We knew we had the top talent but needed the pieces to improve the mid section of our playing 22 Rance / Wietering Curnow/Martin(sort of) Cotchin/Cripps Jack/Harry Martin/Edwards etc but we needed the finishing pieces

Richmond paid #6 for Prestia / Papley as well as getting Nankervis and Caddy which you Guys dont need but do need players like Williams.

This year needs to be a year where Carlton go all in and go after Williams & Papley to elevate them into finals.

Cannot keep relying on organic growth from within. Time is Now

No, I'm just looking at the matter from another perspective.

We don't necessarily have to hit the draft, however, my arguments in prior posts have been acknowledging two things:

1. Salary cap space is limited, so you can't have all the stars in the competition.
2. A small forward isn't our most pressing need. We desperately need to fix our transition work from defensive 50 to forward 50 and the quality of entries.

I strongly believe there are alternate ways to have improve our list in a greater way than what Papley can alone. I stress the word alone because the media are stating that his market value is 2 x first round selections. Our first in this years draft will not get the job done. If we are using all our currency on Papley, it gives us very little room to make moves elsewhere.

If we went down the path of trading our first, I'd be looking at something like the following:

1. Adam Saad is supposedly a fair way off in contract negotiations. Downgrade our first (currently pick 8) and go after him as a replacement for Simpson to inject pace and cover his retirement.
2. Alex Witherden is rumoured to be gettable. Offer a second for him and use him as a distributor across half back. This will allow SPS to move up into the midfield.

So the cap space allocated for Papley could be used on the above 2 to rectify our ball movement out of defense.

SPS is an elite kick and can help rectify our issues moving the ball inside forward 50 once moved into the midfield following the acquisition of both Witherden and Saad. I would then accompany him with the inclusion of Zac Williams in the midfield (another elite kick) as well.

If we still want to address any concerns about our depth in small forward, target a fringe player like Quinton Narkle. He might be able to elevate his game given more opportunity. He also won't cost an arm and a leg.

 

[Eiffel 65]

I don’t think we had one.

We did.

We had a future 3rd which could have been traded into the 2018 draft if required.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Regardless of whatever we do, I manifestly do not want us basing our decisions on what the commentary boxes think we should do.

I agree with this.

But I also agree with what the commentators were saying last night in that our biggest concern is our ball movement heading inside forward 50. We can address this with acquisitions to our defense and midfield to help our ball transition.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

We did.

We had a future 3rd which could have been traded into the 2018 draft if required.

Possibly but very unlikely why would any club do that? It was a super draft and you can’t get much higher then pick 40 in the third round. Teams would’ve been asking for a second.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Possibly but very unlikely why would any club do that? It was a super draft and you can’t get much higher then pick 40 in the third round. Teams would’ve been asking for a second.

People were excited about the top end of the draft because any one of eight players could have gone pick 1 in any other year. It wasn't the back end of the draft that made everyone classify it as a super draft.

Walsh, Lukosius, Ranking, M King, B King, Smith, Rozee and Blakey.

If you look at the live trades, you'll find this is not the case.

Sydney departed with pick 13 in an attempt to get more points for Blakey. We could well have done this by obtaining 2 x 4th round selections too. The deal wasn't hinging on another 3rd. We had the currency to get it done.

 

[Blue__Balls]

I personally attribute Papley's lack of goals to Plowman.

Papley has been quite poor now since round 8. No secrets there and if everyone is being honest around here, they'll actually acknowledge that.

I've seen the heat maps and watched the game.

The reality is everyone is saying we need a crumbing and pressure forward. I haven't seen Papley do much of that all year.

He kicked 19 goals in 8 rounds as a pseudo full forward (the primary target), not as a small forward. That's not the role we'll be using him for and it's not the role he's currently playing which has seen him kick 3 goals since round 8.

Also, we should be aiming for slick ball movement. If we're getting Papley because of our terrible ball movement heading inside forward 50, it's not a vote of confidence for the club. We should be rectifying the issue at the source. Sydney are 15th on the ladder. If they can have excellent ball movement forward of centre, why can't we?

Like a dog with a bone...


I don;'t get why you keep pointing to Papley's output this year in an injury-ravaged, bottom 4 Swans line-up as any kind of evidence we should/shouldn't trade for him.

The Swans aren't kicking goals. They're averaging 7.5 goals per game this season. Papley is the only player on their list to have kicked 10 or more (22). He's kicked more than double the next best on their list - McCartin (9) - who has now been swung into defence because where else do you want your second highest goal scorer? The Swans are hardly even trying to kick winning scores any more, they're just trying to restrict their opponents' ability to blow them out of the water.

Playing as a small forward last year, Papley kicked 37 goals. He's just turned 24. He has the ability to be rotated on ball for short bursts. And in the event that our key forwards were to succumb to injury, he's even shown that he can make a decent fist of playing as a drastically undersized key forward.

His current form is not indicative of what he would/should offer in a new environment, playing at the feet of and delivering the ball to genuine aerial threats like McKay, Curnow, Casboult, De Koning and McGovern. His current form is a fantastic opportunity to drive the asking price down to something more realistic, despite his importance to the Swans and his ongoing contract.

I think we'd be pushing the 1st rounder for Papley and change now, instead of 1st rounder and change for Papley. I'd be pushing for an upgrade of a future third or something of that nature.

 

[Stamos]

We did.

We had a future 3rd which could have been traded into the 2018 draft if required.

Who was going to trade a pick of the value of #40 for a future 3rd?

 

[Stamos]

Possibly but very unlikely why would any club do that? It was a super draft and you can’t get much higher then pick 40 in the third round. Teams would’ve been asking for a second.

And we'd already traded out our 2nd. And our 4th.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

People were excited about the top end of the draft because any one of eight players could have gone pick 1 in any other year. It wasn't the back end of the draft that made everyone classify it as a super draft.

Walsh, Lukosius, Ranking, M King, B King, Smith, Rozee and Blakey.

If you look at the live trades, you'll find this is not the case.

Sydney departed with pick 13 in an attempt to get more points for Blakey. We could well have done this by obtaining 2 x 4th round selections too. The deal wasn't hinging on another 3rd. We had the currency to get it done.

Yes it did, they wanted 40 because they wanted picks. They used that pick, they also traded back in to get a mid second rounder.

 

[Stamos]

Sydney departed with pick 13 in an attempt to get more points for Blakey. We could well have done this by obtaining 2 x 4th round selections too. The deal wasn't hinging on another 3rd. We had the currency to get it done.

It actually was. The deal hinged on Adelaide giving up #40 to get #13.
There are no 2 x 4th round picks that can equal the points of pick #40. The first two 4th round picks are equal to #44.

 

[HARKER]

I think we'd be pushing the 1st rounder for Papley and change now, instead of 1st rounder and change for Papley. I'd be pushing for an upgrade of a future third or something of that nature.

I'd love to come to this thread and have something new to say and that will change, but......

Close ones eyes and play the possible dynamic of having a forward line with a starting group of CCurnow, McKay, Martin and Papley.
It just changes a lot....and for far the better.
We know we don't have issues entering the forward 50 but we do have to make more out of those entries......obviously.

Of course we want to make every line better, but I still don't see our midfield to be the major point of concern for us.
We have the pieces there and now just have the maximise the value of those pieces.

We just don't have anyone like Papley nor Williams....which is why I guess we'd be prioritising them. Makes sense to me.

 

[Curnowhan]

No, I'm just looking at the matter from another perspective.

We don't necessarily have to hit the draft, however, my arguments in prior posts have been acknowledging two things:

1. Salary cap space is limited, so you can't have all the stars in the competition.
2. A small forward isn't our most pressing need. We desperately need to fix our transition work from defensive 50 to forward 50 and the quality of entries.

I strongly believe there are alternate ways to have improve our list in a greater way than what Papley can alone. I stress the word alone because the media are stating that his market value is 2 x first round selections. Our first in this years draft will not get the job done. If we are using all our currency on Papley, it gives us very little room to make moves elsewhere.

If we went down the path of trading our first, I'd be looking at something like the following:

1. Adam Saad is supposedly a fair way off in contract negotiations. Downgrade our first (currently pick 8) and go after him as a replacement for Simpson to inject pace and cover his retirement.
2. Alex Witherden is rumoured to be gettable. Offer a second for him and use him as a distributor across half back. This will allow SPS to move up into the midfield.

So the cap space allocated for Papley could be used on the above 2 to rectify our ball movement out of defense.

SPS is an elite kick and can help rectify our issues moving the ball inside forward 50 once moved into the midfield following the acquisition of both Witherden and Saad. I would then accompany him with the inclusion of Zac Williams in the midfield (another elite kick) as well.

If we still want to address any concerns about our depth in small forward, target a fringe player like Quinton Narkle. He might be able to elevate his game given more opportunity. He also won't cost an arm and a leg.

I agree with you re Witherden. I've watched a lot of the Lions over the last few years and I can't understand why he's fallen out of favour there. Witherden and Newman could replace Simmo and SPS in defence and free up SPS to spend more time on the ball.