Approaching the draft, how was Pfeiffer rated?

[fightingdreamer88]

Far be it from me to suggest this is the case, here. I wouldn't know.

However, if you look over the truly great draft classes - 1994, 1997, 2001 & 2005 - the very best players have often come later in the draft. because of the variations in physical development (and mental) at the junior age, there tends to be clustering of talent, where fairly spurious criteria is used to demarcate some lads off from others. the high standard of competition can also disguise some rare traits...

So I have no idea if mackay will become one of the players, where people ask years later - WTF? but there is an absolute certainty that a couple of guys drafted around his mark will be fantastic players.

for example:
1994 - Michael O'Loughlin (40)
1997 - Adam Goodes (43)
2001 - Sam Mitchell (36)

of course there are others, but it's not long after the draft that draft position becomes irrelevant.

It's remarkable to look back and see some of the players that not only slipped under the radar, but fell off the side of the earth. One thing I will say is that having seen Mackay play I am surprised, nay baffled, by his slipping to pick 48. His 20m sprint time was quite slow but I compare such a test to an express pace bowler's top speed on any given day - you're either on the money or you're not, a one-day measurement isn't necessarily reflective of leg speed overall. Chris Judd's 20m sprint time wasn't all that blistering when he was at draft camp iirc but he's rated right up there with the best in terms of pace.

Mackay ain't slow, I will testify to that. I can only suggest that he wasn't "on" when he took that test. Edit: Anyone who's done athletics will know that these benchmarks vary a lot depending on how you're feeling on the day. ESPECIALLY sprinting.

 

[David_Brent]

It's remarkable to look back and see some of the players that not only slipped under the radar, but fell off the side of the earth. One thing I will say is that having seen Mackay play I am surprised, nay baffled, by his slipping to pick 48. His 20m sprint time was quite slow but I compare such a test to an express pace bowler's top speed on any given day - you're either on the money or you're not, a one-day measurement isn't necessarily reflective of leg speed overall. Chris Judd's 20m sprint time wasn't all that blistering when he was at draft camp iirc but he's rated right up there with the best in terms of pace.

Mackay ain't slow, I will testify to that. I can only suggest that he wasn't "on" when he took that test. Edit: Anyone who's done athletics will know that these benchmarks vary a lot depending on how you're feeling on the day. ESPECIALLY sprinting.

He got basically the same time in the preseason aswell.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

He got basically the same time in the preseason aswell.

Perhaps not explosive off the mark but can reach a great top speed? He was moving quick when I watched him play.

 

[crowsarethebest]

Anoyone still has Wisbey's take on Pfeiffer? I think he thought Pfeiffer was a good talent but he said he had "tunnel vision" and sometimes made poor decisions.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

He got basically the same time in the preseason aswell.

You can have two bad days.

Just ask the Western Bulldogs.

 

[- PC -]

Anoyone still has Wisbey's take on Pfeiffer? I think he thought Pfeiffer was a good talent but he said he had "tunnel vision" and sometimes made poor decisions.

I tried with the above ones but I got a broken link

 

[Crow-mo]

Anoyone still has Wisbey's take on Pfeiffer? I think he thought Pfeiffer was a good talent but he said he had "tunnel vision" and sometimes made poor decisions.

he also said Hurn & Luke mcEntee were the 2 best players of the draft

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Is anyone aware of why Mackay was still avaliable at the end of the third round? I've heard the occasional whisper about his hardness but from the two games i've seen i wouldn't describe him as Nathan Van Berlo 120% Hard but i'd hardly call him Michael Doughty circa 2004 soft

A lot of players of his height and probably the fact he was skinny as .....

I agree is a beautiful mover, is quite quick but as he's generally getting the ball at pace I think he looks quicker than maybe he actually is.

Has tremendous vision and great in-close handball skills to players most players wouldn't see.

A great long kick and very accurate

Is poor in man on man, can be shifted off the ball easily and is a reluctant tackler at best.

If he can improve on the last point we certainly have a quality player

 

[WaynesWorld19]

ate Posted: 23:05:30 11/29/05 Tue
Author: Colin Wisbey
Author Host/IP: c211-28-121-197.eburwd3.vic.optusnet.com.au / 211.28.121.197
Subject: Profile: D Pfeiffer

Darren Pfeiffer (Norwood)

183/79 mid-age right foot (has other foot if necessary) HBF/utility.

*STYLE LIKE: Paul Kelly.

*MY RANKING (not meant to reflect appropriate draft pick to use): 19

*PROBABILITY OF AFL CAREER: Likely. Ready Year 1.

- Within an AFL team list, could prove capable of SUSTAINING a ranking of 10-15.

*HURT FACTORS (Offensive/Defensive/Negative): M / M / M

*TRADEMARK:

- Fearless, and probably successful, fly for a big mark, then tear off downfield but show tunnel-vision and maybe not get value from his kick.
- Just about anything else involving courage.

*SUMMARY ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATION:

- Courageous/fearless and ferocious 6ft take-them-on terrier dasher and high-flyer but kicking, decision-making and accountability a worry. At times, looks serious AFL potential and moves like a good aggressively intense, hard-running AFL type.

Not necessarily a hard-nut, as in "natural insider onballer" type like Paul Kelly was, but he does get his own ball and he plays a very similar style and his attributes and deficiencies are very similar to a HBF version of Kelly's - especially in the areas of courage, ferocious desire for the ball, hard running without being lightning, ability to play tall, ability to withstand physical pressure despite not having a tank build, fierce attack on the man, and NQR kicking efficiency. Pfeiffer will never reach the heights Kelly reached and Kelly was ahead in reliability of decision-making but I do see a lot of Kelly in Pfeiffer and Kelly was one of my most admired players.

- There is plenty to like, and some things to love, about Darren. In addition to the above, he links well and runs hard to do so, he gives a lot of run off half-back

However, his kicking and vision / decision-making on the run let him down too often, he is not nearly accountable enough for someone whose natural AFL role would seem to be HBF, and he is a run-the-lines dasher but not especially quick. I rate him but not with quite the same degree of enthusiasm many others do. If he wasn't inclined to have tunnel vision on the run (which he very often is) and if he hit more targets by foot and if he exercised more judicious accountability, or if I was really confident he could fully address that, I'd rank him as a first rounder and be really excited about him as a great package. But he is, he doesn't, he doesn't, I'm not, so I can't. Hence I wouldn't consider paying more than an early 2nd round pick (but I would quite happily take him with that) and there is a degree of good faith even in accepting that price. I expect him to go mid-late first round.

I have no doubt he will play plenty of AFL games and he will probably hit the ground running. At the moment though, his hurt factors are out of sync (and I've been a bit generous in how I've labelled them). He has to improve his 3 hurt factors (especially DHF and NHF) if he is to become a quality AFL long-termer.

- Originally from rural SA. Has shown he can mix it with the men (not that there should have been any doubt). Had a very good year of SANFL Reserves footy this year and some useful exposure to Seniors (not a lot of game time until an impressive 21 disposals game in Rnd 23).

*DISPOSAL:
(see above)

- Overall, good by hand (but doesn't do enough handballs) and very dicey by foot. Too many turnovers, let alone other inaccurate kicks.

- Dual-sided. Almost equally comfortable right or left but he has days where his non-preferred left gets him into serious trouble. At times his left foot delivers very well but it also has a frustrating turnover record. I would like him to use his left only when using his right is inconvenient. He too often chooses to use his left when he could just as easily, or almost as easily, use his right.

- Kicking when not on the run: Often quite good but not reliably so, and sometimes downright poor. Can get good depth but is not a thumping kick.

- Kicking on the run: Very mixed bag indeed. Sub-standard reliability. He regularly loses form (kicking technique), hunching over and hurriedly banging the ball onto the boot, even when not under any great pressure. He seems to have poor awareness of the pressure he is or isn't under. Too often kicks on the run as if he is about to get nailed. His frequent failure to steady and maintain technique means his kicks on the run often lack depth and power. Too many of his kicks on the run are mongrels/wobblers,

- Good by hand - quick hands, good hurt factor.

*DECISION-MAKING, SMARTS:
(see above)

- In general, vision / looking for options, and decision-making are mixed bag, sometimes exceptional, sometimes showing poor judgement. He is very often very good at traffic in terms of instinctive quick thinking, vision etc. However, in a tactical sense, he needs to play more footy-smart.

- He is somewhat of a ball magnet in the reverse sense. i.e. he is drawn to the ball like a moth to a flame. His fierce appetite for the ball is both a strength and a weakness. Strength in that he runs hard and far for it and won't accept "No" for answer once he has an opportunity to get it (ground, receive, or overhead). Weakness in that he is not always judicious in working out when to go and when to stay (assuming his thought processes actually do accommodate the prospect of a "stay" option). He is not drawn to the ball in the sense of a 12yo chasing it all over the park. He is smarter than that. It's just that his natural instinct is to almost always try to either run at the ball or run to a position in which he anticipates the ball will eventually come to or through. (see "Accountability" comments below). To put it another way, he puts more emphasis on making the play than on minimising the opportunities for the opposition to make the play. He is ultra competitive in his passion for the ball but needs a better grasp of the other side of competitiveness (i.e. adopting a miserly distaste for his opponent getting easy possessions elsewhere).

- Excellent reader of both play and ball when the play is unfolding in front of him. Excellent at roving the spill, especially good at front and square - a speciality of his. In that context, he knows where to run and when, and is very efficient in gathering and often in disposing when he does.

- When under pressure, even little-medium pressure, he needs to focus on slipping into space to buy time. Needs to improve his ability to do same.

- Capable of displaying good vision but, on the run, too often has tunnel vision instead of steadying and sorting out best option.

- Dubious awareness (see above).

- He needs to mix his game up more. At the moment he would offer an opposition AFL coach little challenge in planning a range of tactics to handle and exploit him. There is currently too much of an "Ignore opponent, run to ball or space, gather or receive or fly to mark ball, carry ball downfield, kick in direction of goals" predictability about his game.

Ratio of kicks to feeds is too high. Doesn't feed off nearly often enough (especially given his handballing ability). Too often has tunnel vision and just kicks straight and as far as he can instead of looking for best option. Needs to be more attuned to opportunities to feed off, especially to other runners in space and/or to switch direction.

- Inclined to too often fly for the mark when he has little or no chance of taking it, instead of waiting down.

*HANDS:

- Usually clean all levels. Not routinely special but does often collect the pill off the ground very cleanly at pace.

*OVERHEAD MARKING:

- Very strong overhead for his size. Plays tall. Attacks his marks very aggressively with reckless abandon, including launching himself into the face of the pack. Maintains balance, usually judges flight well and has good hands.

- As stated above, could be more judicious in selecting which aerial contests are worth flying for though, and on which occasions it is better to stay down and sweat of the spill or cover a dangerous free opponent.

- No DC reach figures were published but I suspect he might have a bit of a reach advantage (unconfirmed).

*ATHLETICISM:

- Quite good pace, a bit above average for his size, but he can often look quicker than he actually is because he often already has momentum when getting the ball so steals an initial break once he gets it. He is certainly not super quick but he does often seem to be able to find another gear on the run.

- Excellent leap.

- Will finish up with a very good build for AFL and it won't take long.

- Even allowing for the hard running he does, he does appear to tire at times, and his body shape doesn't appear to be all that rock-hard at this stage so I suspect his endurance is not quite there yet but that he has plenty of scope to lift it.

*INTENSITY, ETHIC:
(see above)

- Accountability is a concern. He is certainly not a downhill skier. He runs hard both ways and is super competitive and regularly desperate and ferocious in trying to nail both ball and man. It's just that he routinely backs his judgement. It's not "just" that he zones off his man at the last minute. He is too inclined to free-wheel and without being necessarily discerning. His opponents made him pay on various occasions this year and a clever AFL forward will make him pay dearly. He is very accountable and intensely physical once an opponent already has the ball or looks a chance to get it. However, in other cases, Pfeiffer's implicit "If I manage to get the ball, the opposition will have to worry about me because they won't have the ball" policy can get in the road of what is sometimes a more important need to make sure his opponent doesn't or is not left in a position where he could be damaging..

- Other than accountability, he usually displays excellent intensity and ethic.

- Fiercely competitive. Ferocious. "Never" gives up. Chases hard, tackles well. Attacks both man and ball with purpose. Always plays as if he really wants the ball. Attacks a marking spoil with the same enthusiasm as when competing for the mark.

- Virtually all the 1%ers covered.

- Ultra courageous.

- An almost relentless runner. Runs hard, covers ground, works hard when he gets to the ball/contest.

*CONSISTENCY:

- Rarely plays a poor game. What you see is what you get.

*AFL VERSATILITY:

- Running HBF seems ideal but he must lift his accountability to his own opponent. "Wing" also suits. In time, when he builds up endurance and if (!) he decides to become much more accountable, might even be a chance of a run-with role.

- I don't see him as a HFF as I think he is better when he can see the play unfold more in front of him and run direct with the ball. Hasn't played a lot as a forward but doesn't seem to read the play and run to the right spots and at with the right timing like a natural forward would. There are some elements of the same on display when he plays onball (as compared to a "wing" role. For that reason I am dubious of his prospects of becoming a smart inside onballer.

*CSI (COMPARATIVE SCOPE for IMPROVEMENT):

- No special factors.

*QUERY:

- Kicking accuracy, especially on the run.
- Tunnel vision on the run.
- Evasion, creating space.
- Accountability.

*SOME STATS:

- Stats summary '05 U18 Champs:
Averaged 17 disposals and 5.0 marks in his 3 games. (Best TD 21).
Kicks per 20 disp: 17.
Kicks long vs short: 21-15 (6 long per 10 kicks).
Ineffective kicks: 7/43 (1.6 per 10 kicks), incl 3 clangers (0.7 per 10 kicks).
Ineffective handballs: 1/7 (1.4 per 10 handballs), incl 1 clangers (1.4 per 10 handballs).
Ineffective disposals: 8/50 (3.2 per 20 disp), incl 4 clangers (1.6 per 20 disp).
HandBall Receives: 16/50 (6 per 20 disp).
Hardball gets: 6/50 (2 per 20 disp).
S.P. clearances: 3/50 (1 per 20 disp), incl 2 BU (1 per 20 disp), incl 0 CBC (0 per 20 disp).
Tackles: 6 (Avg 2.0 per game).
Marks: 15 (6 per 20 disp), incl 3 contested (2.0 per 10 marks).

*OTHER STUFF:

- Good Reserves form '05. Played a few Seniors games (21d R23).

IMO an excellent player with a great future .....given Wisbeys HUGE query on Van Berlo we can safely say that although his assessments have merit the strengths and weaknesses of players at this age are not cast in cement

 

[- PC -]

It has been a widely held belief on here that if Pfeiffer didnt have some personal issues in his first year he would already have played some games

 

[Sanguinarius]

It has been a widely held belief on here that if Pfeiffer didnt have some personal issues in his first year he would already have played some games

and it's also suspected that if he wasnt injured for half the year he wouldnt have had the issues he had...

 

[bus24]

Douglas wasn’t quite so highly rated I don’t think; but I assuming Craig was delighted with what he saw in the TAC Finals so he took the punt. If you compare his stats to those who went above him, Douglas stacks up extremely well. His average of 24 possessions per game is quite high, a lot higher than that of Dale Thomas (2), Xavier Ellis (3) and other high draft picks.

Douglas ticked all boxes before the draft. Only exception was his size. Only weighed in at 68kg and is now up to 77kg.

There is no doubt in my mind that had he not been so skinny, he would've easily gone Top 10. There were serious question marks over his ability to bulk up, but putting on 9kg since he has arrived here has probably answered those questions.

 

[SimonH]

That Wiseby profile borders on scary. He knew more about Pfeiffer than the kid knew about himself. Pretty accurate, but.

PS You can't have him this week, because the Pahhhhr took back Matty Thomas. Maximum one per week, thanks. Form an orderly queue.

 

[Sanguinarius]

Douglas ticked all boxes before the draft. Only exception was his size. Only weighed in at 68kg and is now up to 77kg.

There is no doubt in my mind that had he not been so skinny, he would've easily gone Top 10. There were serious question marks over his ability to bulk up, but putting on 9kg since he has arrived here has probably answered those questions.

was rated the third best mid in the draft behind murphy and thomas wasnt he?

 

[crowsarethebest]

Douglas ticked all boxes before the draft. Only exception was his size. Only weighed in at 68kg and is now up to 77kg.

There is no doubt in my mind that had he not been so skinny, he would've easily gone Top 10. There were serious question marks over his ability to bulk up, but putting on 9kg since he has arrived here has probably answered those questions.

Nah. Douglas wasn't that highly rated. He wasn't highly rated because of his size and he was top age I think. Not many people who could've been taken in the previous draft get taken top 10 in the next draft. Another example of a top ager not being taken early would be Swallow. He was a massive gun but was top age and there were doubts on his kicking.. but now... his kicking is fine and he looks set to be a gun. I don't know why recruiters pass on kids that are just a tad older than the others. Age is over-rated.