List Mgmt. 2020 List Management

[CJMB]

Angus Brayshaw anyone?
Really rate him, struggling like the rest of the Melb list atm.
Worth an enquiring about?

Cost dependent. Think he's contracted until 2022 or something and that 3rd place Brownlow effort (probably partially thanks to his headgear making him more noticeable?...) might mean Melbourne set a high price.

But if they continue their shambolic efforts, no doubt some things (lots of things?) there will have to change. They've got one of the standout rucks tapping the ball down to a collection of highly regarded midfielders, including 2020's 'taken the next step' poster boy, yet they regularly get cut up through the middle.

Still a bit pissed we lost that one...

 

[thylacine60]

I would like us to get a bit more specific in this years trade period. Obviously a class midfielder would be the ideal. Although I disagree with the theory we need an inside mid. I like the stocks we have coming through to play that role. Outside class, ball use and speed for me is essential. Also HBF to replace Simmo.

Players I hope we ask about that are a little left of centre are Oliver Florrent and Will Hayward from Sydney, Alex Witherden from Brisbane, Ed Richards and Bailey Williams from the Dogs and Hunter Clarke from the Saints.

Not sure if any of these are available, but I think a second round pick for any of these in a Doc style trade would be far more beneficial to our cause than kitchen sink style stuff at a Papley,

That said, if we are going to go kitchen sink, I think our three main targets should be Josh Kelly, Jack Mcrae and Zach Merrett, in that order.

Zac Williams fit would be an ideal target, but his history of soft tissue injury makes it very hard to ascertain an accurate value.

Going by Dog's Board, Ed Richards has fallen off a cliff.

 

[Curnivore]

For me, it's way to risky giving up 2 mid 1st rounders for any player

Spread your assets on a spread of talented players with the same currency, which will improve and cover needs in our list

2 x 1st rounders for Papley

Versus

1st for Witherden & Ballenden + 2nd

1st and the above 2nd for Liam Ryan

Makes much more sense to me

Understand your point, but we have so many high draft picks waiting to get into the best 22. If we bought in Kelly rather than bringing in more kids or B graders there would be more opportunity for OBrian, Stocker, Fisher and Dow to get a good run of game time no?

 

[BluesRule]

Don’t see McLean as a target of our recruiting team. We have enough B/B+ graders. The list is looking quite good, with a lot of our talented youngsters reaching the 40-80 games. I would think we are ‘in the window’ and looking to play finals in 2021.

We need A graders who will make a difference like Jack Martin. Not B graders like Mclean.

Agree.

I think we need to focus our limited trade collateral and list spots on key A targets that immediately improve our team.
My preferences (but not necessarily attainable) are:
1. Small Forward(/mid)- Papely would be perfect but else Rioli (if surplus to Tigers needs), Charlie Cameron (if Brisbane won't pay market), etc.
2. HBF - ideally Williams as a RFA, but else how about Fiorini from Suns. OOC and getting injured. Could Russell help with a change of scenery?
3. GWS have surplus mids OOC Hately, Caldwell, Perryman, Cumming. If we go hard for Kelly, or if list size is reduced, could it shake one of these guys loose?
X. Ahern at Norfs is OOC. Was improving after knee problem and should get better over time. Could we resolve that old trade...

 

[BluesRule]

Going by Dog's Board, Ed Richards has fallen off a cliff.

looks slow

 

[Manhattanite]

Was just looking at the stats for 2020 and Hugh Greenwood is ranked number one for pressure points. Steele is 3rd. Lyons is 6th. We don’t have anyone in top 10 and none of our young mids (except for potentially Setters) can dominate in the pressure acts.

Such mids are not expensive but you need one in your 22 and picking up the likes of Kelly or Crouch or another gun won’t solve for that. Nor will an improved Dow or LOB or Philp or Kemp. Won’t be an expensive pick up but we will need to do either end of this season or next.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

AFL media quoting Saints as going for more trades this year and have the $ too. And Jack Steele is out of contract and a priority for them. Hopefully we have already reached out to his management about getting him in. Would walk into our best 22 and over time allow us to phase out Ed.

p.s. I didn’t realize that SOS had picked him up for the Giants in the 2014 draft. Do we know if we tried to get him at end of 2016 when the Saints got him? Would be funny if we end up with another SOS pick... and bloody useful too...

p.p.s. wow he had 18 tackles in one game last season and this season his scalps have included Cripps... and he’s just 24...

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Curnivore]

I said:

I think he'd get selected ahead of Ed, but behind Sam. But then, I think we rather need to move past Ed, as much of a soldier he's been for us.

However, we may not need him if the 'more' he would provide comes from within the list. Philp could be a very similar player inside 2 seasons, given the right kind of development.

Ed is the best tagger in the competition, an endurance star of the AFL and a contested beast when Cripps is getting doubleteamed.

Simmo and Murphy are easier replaced then Ed.
If only two of Betts, Murphy, Ed and Simmo play on next year which two would you want?

 

[DangerousD]

p.s. I didn’t realize that SOS had picked him up for the Giants in the 2014 draft. Do we know if we tried to get him at end of 2016 when the Saints got him? Would be funny if we end up with another SOS pick... and bloody useful too...

When he was available, one of the in the knows mentioned that, SOS did not want him. Referred to him as a speed bump or something to that effect, never quite understood the reference, but we weren’t interested.

 

[HereComesJuddy]

Direct competition with Fisher for a "small mid" position.

Fisher is agile with clean hands, but his tackling is a bit lacklustre (bar that ripping one on Dusty), he's still a bit weak at the contest, and he has a tendency to spray shots at goal from general play.

McLean isn't quite as tidy with his disposal, but he plays with more desperation, tackles reasonably well, draws free kicks and generally finishes OK in front of goal.

Comparatively, it's like O'Brien vs. Newnes. A good game from O'Brien would be scintillating but is rare, but with Newnes you get consistent solid performances. Fisher has it in him to be a very good midfielder, but Mclean offers a lower ceiling but higher floor. The best result is that you take the consistent performances in the short term until the higher ceiling player is developed enough to play consistently to a higher standard. Then they swap, and you've got a solid depth player who you know will give you 6-7/10 games if required.

So only direct competition and a solid depth player. Trading for the sake of trading really doesn't interest me

 

[Team DJ]

I think at least 2, probably 3 of Murphy, Simpson, Kreuzer, Betts and Curnow need to be off the list next year.
With the remaining the year after.

For mine its Simpson Betts and Kreuzer who finish up this year.

Ed is the best tagger in the competition, an endurance star of the AFL and a contested beast when Cripps is getting doubleteamed.

Simmo and Murphy are easier replaced then Ed.
If only two of Betts, Murphy, Ed and Simmo play on next year which two would you want?

 

[HARKER]

Ed is the best tagger in the competition, an endurance star of the AFL and a contested beast when Cripps is getting doubleteamed.

Simmo and Murphy are easier replaced then Ed.
If only two of Betts, Murphy, Ed and Simmo play on next year which two would you want?

They are right now., even if we don't have like-for-like replacements.

ECurnow does a power of work, some visible and some not so visible but he never drops below almost a premium level, given his abilities.
I feel we'll only really miss him when he's not there any more.

 

[Curnivore]

I think at least 2, probably 3 of Murphy, Simpson, Kreuzer, Betts and Curnow need to be off the list next year.
With the remaining the year after.

For mine its Simpson Betts and Kreuzer who finish up this year.

Kreuzer isn't taking anyone's spot, can stick around for depth.
Simpson, has been a champion but Newman will be ready and we have other kids waiting.
Betts can walk to a coaching position so long as we have a small forward to put in his place.
Murphy, as much as I love him, is the most replaceable if some of the kids come on

 

[jooce8891]

 

[Blue__Balls]

So only direct competition and a solid depth player. Trading for the sake of trading really doesn't interest me

That's not trading for the sake of trading. It's using lesser assets to add immediate improvement to the list without compromising out ability to get elite talent in as well.

Papley + McLean + Witherden would be achievable without giving up any required players. Immediate improvement in the forward line, immediate support in the midfield, immediate replacement for SPS so he can be released upfield. Could get all three with two firsts and change.

 

[Blue__Balls]

When he was available, one of the in the knows mentioned that, SOS did not want him. Referred to him as a speed bump or something to that effect, never quite understood the reference, but we weren’t interested.

Think we were looking for "talent", and to that end, yeah, Steele was only ordinary.

Has done very well to carve out a role for himself as a run-with player though. Credit to him.

 

[Gethelred]

Ed is the best tagger in the competition, an endurance star of the AFL and a contested beast when Cripps is getting doubleteamed.

Simmo and Murphy are easier replaced then Ed.
If only two of Betts, Murphy, Ed and Simmo play on next year which two would you want?

Ed and Betts.

Here's the thing: as long as Ed is getting 15+ possessions and not kicking the ball, I have zero issue with him being a part of the squad. We do not need many possessions to kick a goal these days; we're cut from a different cloth than the Longmire or Beverage schools of transition. Ed could play until he's very old, or he could retire at the end of next season, purely on the basis of how he's used.

I have a question for you, and for any who's interested. Do you ever wonder why Ed ends up being the final point of the play so often? Why opposition seek to corral rather than tackle him? Does it make sense, given the other players in our midfield, that we have designed for Ed to be the one who kicks inside forward 50? Is this not a concern to you?

I have the utmost respect for Ed, as I do all of the players you mention, and I'd be stoked to see him play 5+ years in a modified role that sees him continuing to stop opposition midfielders but handballing more and kicking less. But, right now, he's kicking the ball too much in my opinion, and it results in turnovers.

 

[HARKER]

I have the utmost respect for Ed, as I do all of the players you mention, and I'd be stoked to see him play 5+ years in a modified role that sees him continuing to stop opposition midfielders but handballing more and kicking less. But, right now, he's kicking the ball too much in my opinion, and it results in turnovers.

Good observation and having just looked at his numbers, he's currently going at 2:1 kick to handball ratio.

My memory doesn't serve me that well in recalling all his disposals, but it seems to me that Cripps, ECurnow and even Walsh are pushing the ball forward, for a 'let's see what comes about' outcome. Not sure the chaos disposal always serves us best but it may be under instruction, give we now have Martin and Betts forward. Maybe?

 

[Arr0w]

Understand your point, but we have so many high draft picks waiting to get into the best 22. If we bought in Kelly rather than bringing in more kids or B graders there would be more opportunity for OBrian, Stocker, Fisher and Dow to get a good run of game time no?

Don't underrate B graders, they are in every side

 

[Arr0w]

I quite like Hewett, seems versatile, can tag, kick a goal and get a bit of his own ball. Assuming he wanted to leave, and wanted to come to us, what do you think it'd cost to get him over?

Mid 2nd

 

[Arr0w]

What makes you think he's be cheaper than McLean?

Is it just the contract status?

The circumstances of the two clubs seem particularly relevant - WB have plenty of depth in the middle, but will need to stockpile some picks to cover an early bid for Ugle-Hagan, while Sydney are entering rebuild territory, have a struggling midfield at the moment, and we'll be making a strong play for Papley. I can see WB releasing McLean for unders to improve their draft position a bit and not make life difficult for a player who isn't in their 22, while I can see Sydney playing harder ball with Hewett given he's an important part of their midfield setup and they're not batting deep there at the moment (plus we'll be coming hard for Papley).

Yeap, contract status

 

[Gethelred]

Good observation and having just looked at his numbers, he's currently going at 2:1 kick to handball ratio.

My memory doesn't serve me that well in recalling all his disposals, but it seems to me that Cripps, ECurnow and even Walsh are pushing the ball forward, for a 'let's see what comes about' outcome. Not sure the chaos disposal always serves us best but it may be under instruction, give we now have Martin and Betts forward. Maybe?

I get that, but what I'm talking about is the manner of entry.

As I see it, we have two types of entry into forward fifty that are specified under our game. We have the targeted lowering of the eyes and kicking to a leading player, and we have the long bomb to vacant space, on the presumption that there's someone down there who can outmark their opposition or beat them once the ball hits ground. Ed is actually - when given time and space - quite adept at the former, but very frequently he is not given time or space to make the play in that manner, instead often being surrounded by players who are physically pressuring him into getting the footy out of the vicinity.

We go for chaos ball because it works in terms of generating scores, but my problem is that simply kicking blindly into forward 50 from a stoppage or a contest is bad football, which is why I've made the distinction above. A long kick is not a blind one; it doesn't have to be to someone so much as it can be to space.

We can deal with Newnes, Docherty and Walsh kicking in long and high because there is clearly a plan to what they're doing; they're kicking 50+ metres after running 20, creating 70m lances into forward lines in order to create chaos amidst an unprepared defense, or to bring the ball to ground and force a stoppage. We cannot deal with a prepared defense zoning off and intercepting high slow kicks to no-one and nowhere in particular.

 

[HARKER]

I get that, but what I'm talking about is the manner of entry.

As I see it, we have two types of entry into forward fifty that are specified under our game. We have the targeted lowering of the eyes and kicking to a leading player, and we have the long bomb to vacant space, on the presumption that there's someone down there who can outmark their opposition or beat them once the ball hits ground. Ed is actually - when given time and space - quite adept at the former, but very frequently he is not given time or space to make the play in that manner, instead often being surrounded by players who are physically pressuring him into getting the footy out of the vicinity.

We go for chaos ball because it works in terms of generating scores, but my problem is that simply kicking blindly into forward 50 from a stoppage or a contest is bad football, which is why I've made the distinction above. A long kick is not a blind one; it doesn't have to be to someone so much as it can be to space.

We can deal with Newnes, Docherty and Walsh kicking in long and high because there is clearly a plan to what they're doing; they're kicking 50+ metres after running 20, creating 70m lances into forward lines in order to create chaos amidst an unprepared defense, or to bring the ball to ground and force a stoppage. We cannot deal with a prepared defense zoning off and intercepting high slow kicks to no-one and nowhere in particular.

OK. It helps reading the whole post sometimes instead of where your eye takes you.
I have the answer for you. I don't know.

I'm just eager to get the likes of Dow and Fisher streaming through the midfield because they'll add real 'chaos thought' into the minds of defenders.
Sometimes those extra couple of steps make all the difference as we've seen at times via Cuningham and Martin so far this year, as backlines are more likely to lose their structure....as for Ed?

 

[new_blue]

Ed and Betts.

Here's the thing: as long as Ed is getting 15+ possessions and not kicking the ball, I have zero issue with him being a part of the squad. We do not need many possessions to kick a goal these days; we're cut from a different cloth than the Longmire or Beverage schools of transition. Ed could play until he's very old, or he could retire at the end of next season, purely on the basis of how he's used.

I have a question for you, and for any who's interested. Do you ever wonder why Ed ends up being the final point of the play so often? Why opposition seek to corral rather than tackle him? Does it make sense, given the other players in our midfield, that we have designed for Ed to be the one who kicks inside forward 50? Is this not a concern to you?

I have the utmost respect for Ed, as I do all of the players you mention, and I'd be stoked to see him play 5+ years in a modified role that sees him continuing to stop opposition midfielders but handballing more and kicking less. But, right now, he's kicking the ball too much in my opinion, and it results in turnovers.

I observed this constantly and have never understood why this is the case. Should be instructed to give first handball when available.

Do we put it down to poor coaching or Ed not following I orders? I think it’s a failure on the coaching side.

I have this same issue with Kruezer.

IMO both players would be much more valuable if I did this more regularly.

 

[Gethelred]

I observed this constantly and have never understood why this is the case. Should be instructed to give first handball when available.

Do we put it down to poor coaching or Ed not following I orders? I think it’s a failure on the coaching side.

I have this same issue with Kruezer.

IMO both players would be much more valuable if I did this more regularly.

I'd argue it's due to compromises from both us and the opposition. I mean, if you think about it just conceding the clearance/breakaway from a stoppage scenario is not what most coaches would think is an ideal outcome, but at times it's merely the best they can engineer. Better Ed than Murphy, Setterfield or Walsh. And we take the win because our game is relentless moving the ball forward, often too fast to even consider control. We take the movement on the basis that while we don't have a clean chain of possession, we should get the ball to ground and another stoppage; if we're already winning the stoppages and/or our opponent is better on the break than we are, continuous stoppages help us get set up behind the ball and field position becomes more important than precision.

It's when things break down (the clearance is too close to the forward half, opposition have time to set for the kick and the rebound, they are well on top in the clearances around the ground) that this becomes a problem.

IMO, the greatest attribute Hawthorn possessed during their threepeat was not their precision or stoppage setups, but their ability to always keep scoring. They scored when they were playing badly, and they scored when they were playing well. Opposition sides would have ascendancy on them, but the game would always be close because despite their ascendancy they couldn't keep Hawthorn from their forward half and stop them from kicking goals. All they'd have to do is to get the game back on their terms, and the floodgates would open and they'd slam on 5-6 unanswered to take the lead and/or pull away. I bring this up because we're well on our way towards playing this way ourselves. But if we're constantly giving the ball back when we need to be at our most precise - ie, when the opposition are ascendant - we're not going to be able to tangle with the best for very long.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I'd argue it's due to compromises from both us and the opposition. I mean, if you think about it just conceding the clearance/breakaway from a stoppage scenario is not what most coaches would think is an ideal outcome, but at times it's merely the best they can engineer. Better Ed than Murphy, Setterfield or Walsh. And we take the win because our game is relentless moving the ball forward, often too fast to even consider control. We take the movement on the basis that while we don't have a clean chain of possession, we should get the ball to ground and another stoppage; if we're already winning the stoppages and/or our opponent is better on the break than we are, continuous stoppages help us get set up behind the ball and field position becomes more important than precision.

It's when things break down (the clearance is too close to the forward half, opposition have time to set for the kick and the rebound, they are well on top in the clearances around the ground) that this becomes a problem.

IMO, the greatest attribute Hawthorn possessed during their threepeat was not their precision or stoppage setups, but their ability to always keep scoring. They scored when they were playing badly, and they scored when they were playing well. Opposition sides would have ascendancy on them, but the game would always be close because despite their ascendancy they couldn't keep Hawthorn from their forward half and stop them from kicking goals. All they'd have to do is to get the game back on their terms, and the floodgates would open and they'd slam on 5-6 unanswered to take the lead and/or pull away. I bring this up because we're well on our way towards playing this way ourselves. But if we're constantly giving the ball back when we need to be at our most precise - ie, when the opposition are ascendant - we're not going to be able to tangle with the best for very long.

Hawthorn really were brilliant at that at their peak. It also helped having Breust and Cyril who were great opportunist’s. They had a pretty amazing forward line when you look back at it, their first team of the three peat had 5 forwards who went onto be AA (one being a great of the game) and Poppy who had that really good defensive game. The next two after they lost buddy still had 4 and Poppy. Imo it is also why Adelaide nearly won a premiership in 2017. They had Cameron, Betts and for all his faults Jenkins who were all good opportunists.

this is also why I hope we have a crack at Pertruccelle. I could easily imagine him getting on the end of our teams hard work and running into open ‘cheap’ goals which other players wouldn’t be able to.

personally I think that is easier to replicate then say what Richmond have done which imo is pretty incredible.