Traded Adam Treloar [traded w/ #28 to Collingwood for #7, #65, 2016 first rounder]

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

The 747 said:
Yawn nice attempt to avoid addressing my post. Why is one injury plagued player not a fail when the other two are?
Click to expand...
Why are you clutching at petty things for the sake of arguing? What does that have to do with the general argument? Piss off and stop trolling.
 
Footy Smarts said:
I still don't see what qualities Treloar has that will ever make him an elite midfielder. He's clearly a very good accumulator and Collingwood get to lock in a known talent but for the price you want a guy who will lead a team's midfield. I just don't see that in Treloar.
Click to expand...
He's a less damaging Dangerfield. That burst, acceleration is something I've loved watching this year. He just needs to tidy up his disposal.

Don't know what you're waiting for. He is already leading our midfield with Pendles. He'll win our B&F in his first season. That should be enough to shut up the doubters. Regardless of where a club is at, if a 23 year old midfielder can win the club B&F, he has a bright future, pretty simple.
 
PieLebo87 said:
He's a less damaging Dangerfield. That burst, acceleration is something I've loved watching this year. He just needs to tidy up his disposal.

Don't know what you're waiting for. He is already leading our midfield with Pendles. He'll win our B&F in his first season. That should be enough to shut up the doubters. Regardless of where a club is at, if a 23 year old midfielder can win the club B&F, he has a bright future, pretty simple.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt he has a bright future and he is already a good player. But you also gave up a lot in terms of wage and picks so we're talking how good is he compared to what you gave up not compared to an average player.

I guess a less damaging Dangerfield is reasonable. He doesn't run, carry and kick long to the same extent (612m gained to 367). He doesn't win the tough contested ball as much and Dangerfield is a gun contested mark while Treloar has only taken 1 for the year. I also think people understate how much of an issue Danger and Treloar's poor defensive positioning can be. I'd also suggest teams put a lot more I me into Pendles and Sidebottom than Treloar because they're the ones who really can hurt teams when they get it.

And b&fs with teams who have suffered injuries aren't really that impressive. Blicavs won our B&F last year at 1 year older than Treloar is now playing mainly through midfield. Nobody would be suggesting Blicavs is worth 2x top 10 picks and 800k+ in wage. I think Treloar could be a premiership player with a couple of other gun midfielders better than him or a really deep midfield where he's one of 5-6 of similar quality. But the amount paid by Collingwood suggests they see him as a long term number 1 mid. I don't think he's good enough for that.
 
Footy Smarts said:
There's no doubt he has a bright future and he is already a good player. But you also gave up a lot in terms of wage and picks so we're talking how good is he compared to what you gave up not compared to an average player.

We're not a top 4 side at the moment, and we don't have the quality to be paying it to someone else. We also haven't got players deserving of the big bucks who aren't already on big bucks. A lot of people think he is worth the picks. I'm sick of arguing whether he is or isn't. My views are in the posts above.

I guess a less damaging Dangerfield is reasonable. He doesn't run, carry and kick long to the same extent (612m gained to 367). He doesn't win the tough contested ball as much and Dangerfield is a gun contested mark while Treloar has only taken 1 for the year. I also think people understate how much of an issue Danger and Treloar's poor defensive positioning can be. I'd also suggest teams put a lot more I me into Pendles and Sidebottom than Treloar because they're the ones who really can hurt teams when they get it.

You've thrown out stats comparing the two. As I said, he's a less damaging Dangerfield. I wasn't saying he is his equal. Keep in mind going back to Round 10 or so, they were about par on output with Danger in a far more superior side, whilst also having a couple of years more experience in the system. Also, he is still top 5 in the league for dreamteam/ disposals alongside two other 23 year olds in Parker and Neale. He is also top 10 for goal assists. You might be underselling him trying to compare his numbers to Danger, who has been the standout #1 midfielder in the game this season.

Also, obviously teams will put more emphasis on Pendles and Sidebottom, they are two elite midfielders in the game, and regardless of which side in the AFL (bar Sydney), they'd be top 3 or 4 in a team's midfield. A 23 year isn't going to better that unless he's a freak.

And b&fs with teams who have suffered injuries aren't really that impressive. Blicavs won our B&F last year at 1 year older than Treloar is now playing mainly through midfield. Nobody would be suggesting Blicavs is worth 2x top 10 picks and 800k+ in wage. I think Treloar could be a premiership player with a couple of other gun midfielders better than him or a really deep midfield where he's one of 5-6 of similar quality. But the amount paid by Collingwood suggests they see him as a long term number 1 mid. I don't think he's good enough for that.

Winning a B&F is a great achievement that you shouldn't talk down. It is voted for by the coaches and takes into consideration far more variables than a Brownlow or AA selection. Blicavs is definitely above average and Geelong wouldn't trade him out for just a top 10 pick, would you?

Well agree to disagree because it just doesn't seem like you've seen enough of Treloar to understand his worth. Did you watch him against your mob? 29 possessions and a goal, 2 goal assists, 7 score involvements and 8 tackles. He'll probably get recognition from the umps for that game. Doesn't seem like he gets it from you though.
Click to expand...
My responses are highlighted above.
 
PieLebo87 said:
My responses are highlighted above.
Click to expand...

It looks like we don't rate him that much differently. You agree with me that he's a step behind Sidebottom and Pendles. That puts him outside the elite bracket of the top 20 mids in the comp and somewhere in amongst a big group between 20-50 or so. That's where I'd have him too. Of course when he has a good game he has a big impact like against Geelong. I just don't think that sort of player, even at the age of 23, is worth 2x pick 7. Also there's no way we'd trade Blicavs but if he was uncontracted and named his destination I'd be shocked if we were offered 1 top 10 pick let alone 2.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Footy Smarts said:
I still don't see what qualities Treloar has that will ever make him an elite midfielder. He's clearly a very good accumulator and Collingwood get to lock in a known talent but for the price you want a guy who will lead a team's midfield. I just don't see that in Treloar.
Click to expand...

Not sure where this idea that Treloar is just a mere accumulator comes from. He can genuinely win his own footy, break away, and create for others on a regular basis.

In terms of per game averages, Treloar leads the Pies in disposals, clearances, running bounces and goal assists, is 2nd (behind Travis Cloke) for inside 50s, is 2nd (behind Taylor Adams) for metres gained, and is 2nd (behind Scott Pendlebury) for contested possessions and effective disposals, and is a close 4th (behind Pendlebury, Steele Sidebottom and Alex Fasolo) in score involvements. Is also 2nd (behind Levi Greenwood) for tackles per game too, so he's doing his fair share going the other way as well, despite people's insistence that he's doesn't work hard enough defensively.

He's 23, and is a good athlete with a good record of health, and has a good work ethic and head on his shoulders. There's nothing to say he won't improve further from here, and become a true superstar of the game. I mean, Scott Pendlebury went from very good (2009) to great (2010) to elite (2011) at a similar age, and has maintained that level going on six years now. It also helped that the team got better with him, too. I think there's still another level or two to go for Treloar, and the squad around him improving with age and experience and familiarity and continuity with one another should help, but he'll be one of the centrepieces and driving forces.
 
Footy Smarts said:
There's no doubt he has a bright future and he is already a good player. But you also gave up a lot in terms of wage and picks so we're talking how good is he compared to what you gave up not compared to an average player.

I guess a less damaging Dangerfield is reasonable. He doesn't run, carry and kick long to the same extent (612m gained to 367). He doesn't win the tough contested ball as much and Dangerfield is a gun contested mark while Treloar has only taken 1 for the year. I also think people understate how much of an issue Danger and Treloar's poor defensive positioning can be. I'd also suggest teams put a lot more I me into Pendles and Sidebottom than Treloar because they're the ones who really can hurt teams when they get it.

And b&fs with teams who have suffered injuries aren't really that impressive. Blicavs won our B&F last year at 1 year older than Treloar is now playing mainly through midfield. Nobody would be suggesting Blicavs is worth 2x top 10 picks and 800k+ in wage. I think Treloar could be a premiership player with a couple of other gun midfielders better than him or a really deep midfield where he's one of 5-6 of similar quality. But the amount paid by Collingwood suggests they see him as a long term number 1 mid. I don't think he's good enough for that.
Click to expand...
If a Dangerfield comparison is to be made, the fairest way is to do one of them at the same age:
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...ayerStatus2=A&tid2=10&pid2=2310&fid2=O&type=A

Makes for some interesting reading. Danger being the more contested of the two, and Treloar being a much higher accumulator and more effective disposer of the ball. Danger kicked more goals, Treloar laid more tackles, both averaging roughly the same amount of clearances. Keep in mind, Treloars numbers this year come off an entire preseason in rehab.

It seems to go over a lot of people's heads that despite Treloar not being as good as the current Dangerfield is, he's every bit as good as Danger was at his age. Treloar hasn't hit his peak yet, and that's what the pies are banking on with this trade. Odds are high that AT will become a better player than he already is, but his price tag was justified even if he doesn't improve all that much. He's already our clear second best player behind Pendlebury.
 
Apex36 said:
It seems to go over a lot of people's heads that despite Treloar not being as good as the current Dangerfield is, he's every bit as good as Danger was at his age.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing Treloar is anything but a very good player but this is delusion at its finest!

At age 22 (season 2012) Dangerfield was AA and polled 22 brownlow votes. He was also clearly Adelaide's best player in a team that was a kick away from a grand final. The next year he was AA again and polled 21 brownlow votes.

Treloar in comparison polled 4 brownlow votes and didn't make the AA squad when he was 22. We'll see how he goes this year but I'd be very surprised by AA and 21 votes in the brownlow.
 
Footy Smarts said:
Nobody is arguing Treloar is anything but a very good player but this is delusion at its finest!

At age 22 (season 2012) Dangerfield was AA and polled 22 brownlow votes. He was also clearly Adelaide's best player in a team that was a kick away from a grand final. The next year he was AA again and polled 21 brownlow votes.

Treloar in comparison polled 4 brownlow votes and didn't make the AA squad when he was 22. We'll see how he goes this year but I'd be very surprised by AA and 21 votes in the brownlow.
Click to expand...
Far easier to poll Brownlow votes in a winning team than in a team that loses with regular monotony.
 
Footy Smarts said:
Nobody is arguing Treloar is anything but a very good player but this is delusion at its finest!

At age 22 (season 2012) Dangerfield was AA and polled 22 brownlow votes. He was also clearly Adelaide's best player in a team that was a kick away from a grand final. The next year he was AA again and polled 21 brownlow votes.

Treloar in comparison polled 4 brownlow votes and didn't make the AA squad when he was 22. We'll see how he goes this year but I'd be very surprised by AA and 21 votes in the brownlow.
Click to expand...
Lol. Because brownlow votes are a good way to gauge how good a player is.

Priddis. That is all.
 
Wow the delusion really is strong. Dangerfield finished top 10 in coaches votes in 2012 and 2013. I don't know where Treloar finished last year but this year he's on 37 votes whereas 10th place Robbie Gray is on 62. Clearly everyone else is just wrong.
 
AT has been fantastic for the Pies this year and I'm comfortable with what we paid for him.

Reportedly he is on 650k-700k per year for 6yrs. His output this year has been worth every cent in year 1 of his contract. Looking forward to seasons 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, his salary will IMO prove to be a bargain.

Picks wise, I can live with two first picks going out and 28 coming back. Clearly we had planned for this year's pick to be higher, but so be it.

AT is more than a very good player, he's a gun young mid. Hard at it, clean with his hands in traffic, explosive burst speed out of packs. His main areas of improvement for mine are his kicking efficiency and penetration, which I'm confident will improve over time.
 
Make the call this time next year after he has had a full preseason.

Think people forget he had groin surgery, wasn't even expected to play round 1.
 
Footy Smarts said:
Wow the delusion really is strong. Dangerfield finished top 10 in coaches votes in 2012 and 2013. I don't know where Treloar finished last year but this year he's on 37 votes whereas 10th place Robbie Gray is on 62. Clearly everyone else is just wrong.
Click to expand...
Stop trolling and piss off then. You've made your argument. Not alot of people agree with you. Why're you still arguing? You're clearly just trying to take the piss. We get it, he's not worth 2 first round picks to you. Move along...
 
PieLebo87 said:
Stop trolling and piss off then. You've made your argument. Not alot of people agree with you. Why're you still arguing? You're clearly just trying to take the piss. We get it, he's not worth 2 first round picks to you. Move along...
Click to expand...

So one guy at 23 was AA, top 10 in coaches votes and top 10 in the Brownlow 2 years running. The second guy at 23 has never come close to any of these. Yet I'm the one trolling for pointing out that they're nothing like as good as each other at the same age. Good one!

You pie fans sure know how to get defensive when someone points out how ridiculously you overrate one of your own.

Oh and isn't it interesting how his worth changes once he gets to the pies...

PieLebo87 said:
Making it two first rounders for him and a second rounder is paying overs
Click to expand...

Oh look we're in agreement that you paid overs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Obeanie1
Traded Bigoa Nyuon [Traded to North for Pick #65]
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
Mofra
Traded Taylor Adams [traded to Sydney for pick #33]
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
265
Views
13K
RUNVS
RUNVS
H
Traded Elijah Hollands [Traded to Carlton with #28 & F4 for #26 and F3(Ess)]
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
533
Views
39K
Maybe Tomorrow
Maybe Tomorrow
Snuffaluphagus
Traded Lachie Schultz [Traded to Collingwood for #34 and F1]
63 64 65 66 67
Replies
2K
Views
46K
fnerd
F
L
Traded Xavier Duursma [Traded to Essendon for Zerk-Thatcher, #73, 2x F4]
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
235
Views
14K
Kane McGoodwin
Kane McGoodwin
Elixuh
Traded Tom Fullarton - [Traded to Melbourne for #47]
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Saab NLAW
S
Makeshift Park
Traded Mabior Chol [Traded with #62 to Hawthorn for F2 (Bris)]
25 26 27 28 29
Replies
719
Views
32K
H00t
H

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top