Strategy Chappy says "Play Dangerfield as Permanent forward".

[Spazz Cat]

Ayres wanted more than a one year deal iirc, and got that easily at Adelaide. I still feel he was pretty harshly dealt with here on BF , but I know I'm solo in that. Bomber was the man for the moment, we know, but even he is on the nose now.

Wasn't aware he would of stayed for a longer contract.
Made a GF in his first year as coach.
97 was the first year I ever felt like were the best team in the comp and should win the flag.
In all those other GF and finals years I never felt like that. Had us playing really good footy.

 

[Scottland2007]

I don't care if it's forwards, backwards or upside down. 3rd q of JLT Adelaide v Geelong shows we need Dangerfield or we'll have another 2015 type season.

 

[catempire]

I don't care if it's forwards, backwards or upside down. 3rd q of JLT Adelaide v Geelong shows we need Dangerfield or we'll have another 2015 type season.

Lucky we have him then eh?

 

[Scottland2007]

Lucky we have him then eh?

don't mean to go all "BT" on ya, but "boy oh boy, Wowee"' that's some understatement CE!

 

[The Unforgiven]

Chappy is clearly still dirty with the club if this is the advice he is giving it. I never rated Chappy as an intelligent man, but no one is this daft. Stop trolling, Chappy!

 

[Benny78]

Why would we move our entire midfield into the forward line? I thought the game was won in the midfield and here he is suggesting to devoid ourselves of one completely.

 

[AM]

While on Danger, I thought the comment by Crawford on the Footy Show last night was unusually insightful. It was that Danger is known for bursting from packs and kicking long thereby allowing opposition teams to set-up with numbers. He suggested Danger would be well advised to not be so predictable and look for loose players with shorter kicks from time to time. Showed some examples.

 

[Partridge]

While on Danger, I thought the comment by Crawford on the Footy Show last night was unusually insightful. It was that Danger is known for bursting from packs and kicking long thereby allowing opposition teams to set-up with numbers. He suggested Danger would be well advised to not be so predictable and look for loose players with shorter kicks from time to time. Showed some examples.

He's not always the most accurate kick when he does that either.

 

[Turbocat]

IT would seem that at least in part ...the idea of Danger playing forward has more support than just one X player

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...n/news-story/973b114e7232aa9f80d9743f74b8989a

“All these other guys, you’re just going to have to cut the tie at some stage and maybe only play one of them in the midfield,” Bartel told RSN.

“If Geelong are ever going to make that next step ... and (have) a more balance forward line, you need Dangerfield to play forward a bit more often.

“If he has high 20s and kicks two or three, I think that’s a lot more damaging a result.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...n/news-story/973b114e7232aa9f80d9743f74b8989a

 

[catempire]

While on Danger, I thought the comment by Crawford on the Footy Show last night was unusually insightful. It was that Danger is known for bursting from packs and kicking long thereby allowing opposition teams to set-up with numbers. He suggested Danger would be well advised to not be so predictable and look for loose players with shorter kicks from time to time. Showed some examples.

Do not want to see that advice followed. The burst/long kick is effective for precisely the reason that the opposition can't setup with numbers. It's the long kick following the slow build-up that allows the opposition backs to set up.

 

[Bobby_]

Yep, agree with Bartel there.
I'm one who wants Dangerfield forward. 20 touches and 2 goals per game versus 33 touches and 1 goal per game.

Bartel said something interesting "If Geelong are ever going to take that next step" I suspect he feels we can't win a premiership going by last years formula. He is basically saying we need some younger blokes to raise the bar and become elite.
That means we have one of the most devastating footballers lurking near the goals and possibly witnessing Duncan or Menegola becoming A grader footballers doing more than enough to support Selwood.
That could see us win a preliminary final.

 

[Scottland2007]

While on Danger, I thought the comment by Crawford on the Footy Show last night was unusually insightful. It was that Danger is known for bursting from packs and kicking long thereby allowing opposition teams to set-up with numbers. He suggested Danger would be well advised to not be so predictable and look for loose players with shorter kicks from time to time. Showed some examples.

One of the best preseason vids I have seen was Danger Handballing it to Duncan out of the middle. Duncan has an extremely accurate boot. The forward line started making leads for Duncs (might have even been Hawk). I think we would play better if Danger got it to a good outside mid rather than Bomb and hope.

 

[Frank Bunn]

While on Danger, I thought the comment by Crawford on the Footy Show last night was unusually insightful. It was that Danger is known for bursting from packs and kicking long thereby allowing opposition teams to set-up with numbers. He suggested Danger would be well advised to not be so predictable and look for loose players with shorter kicks from time to time. Showed some examples.

He's already working on it.

He has been working on his kicking with Cats assistant James Rahilly out at Geelong’s Waurn Ponds training base, trying to hone his ball usage going inside 50.

“It’s about kicking through the ball, having your head over the ball and body behind it,” Dangerfield said of his work with Rahilly.

“If you’re laying back then your kicks are going to be generally more skewiff.”​

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...s/news-story/6167f2cdf7219f07de1b5ee7f5fc1acf

Just an impression but he seems to get great distance on his right foot but not always the accuracy. But on his left he seems to aim the ball to a teammate over a shorter distance.

 

[lionbear]

Will be a good permanent forward late in his career, but watching him burst out of the middle is something I am no way near ready to say goodbye to.

 

[Turbocat]

Do not want to see that advice followed. The burst/long kick is effective for precisely the reason that the opposition can't setup with numbers. It's the long kick following the slow build-up that allows the opposition backs to set up.

Id agree , the slow build up is almost always the wrong choice ... but what id like to know is how many scoring opportunities were created from Dangers inside 50's. I doubt Hawkins had more than 5 to 10 setshots from a Danger ball. Even when Danger seemed to make good contact and put it to Hawkins advantage it just didn't seem to work out to often. Long or short , I hope his breaks create more scores in 2017.

 

[Turbocat]

He's already working on it.

He has been working on his kicking with Cats assistant James Rahilly out at Geelong’s Waurn Ponds training base, trying to hone his ball usage going inside 50.

“It’s about kicking through the ball, having your head over the ball and body behind it,” Dangerfield said of his work with Rahilly.

“If you’re laying back then your kicks are going to be generally more skewiff.”​

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...s/news-story/6167f2cdf7219f07de1b5ee7f5fc1acf

Just an impression but he seems to get great distance on his right foot but not always the accuracy. But on his left he seems to aim the ball to a teammate over a shorter distance.

Id be interested in doing a study on the best passes ... I think head over the ball , weight forward etc and not leaning back is fine in setshots..look at the side vision of HarryTaylor having setshots for an example of leaning back .... I think one of the best passes I ever saw was Darren Jarman. On the run he always seemed to maintain balance , sometime he would kick it around the corner but he would try to keep weight forward and maintain balance.


but when free running straight he would also keep his head ahead of the ball. For eg.

 

[Baudolino]

Id agree , the slow build up is almost always the wrong choice ... but what id like to know is how many scoring opportunities were created from Dangers inside 50's. I doubt Hawkins had more than 5 to 10 setshots from a Danger ball. Even when Danger seemed to make good contact and put it to Hawkins advantage it just didn't seem to work out to often. Long or short , I hope his breaks create more scores in 2017.

He finished with a team-high 22 goal assists.

Also, despite our often slow build-up, despite our habit of bombing long to a double-teamed Hawkins, despite the flaws of our forward line...we still finished third-highest in the "Points For" column at the end of the home and away season. Many of the criticisms of our deficiencies in those areas are legitimate - I've been as vocal as anyone regarding our need to improve delivery inside 50 and for the forwards to lead more often - but I think it's worth noting that while we definitely need to improve, a bit of perspective and proportionality when discussing the issue is merited.* It's not like we were an impotent scoring threat last year.

*not aimed at you TC, I'm speaking in general terms

 

[Turbocat]

He finished with a team-high 22 goal assists.

Also, despite our often slow build-up, despite our habit of bombing long to a double-teamed Hawkins, despite the flaws of our forward line...we still finished third-highest in the "Points For" column at the end of the home and away season. Many of the criticisms of our deficiencies in those areas are legitimate - I've been as vocal as anyone regarding our need to improve delivery inside 50 and for the forwards to lead more often - but I think it's worth noting that while we definitely need to improve, a bit of perspective and proportionality when discussing the issue is merited.* It's not like we were an impotent scoring threat last year.

*not aimed at you TC, I'm speaking in general terms

So less than 1 a game. He creates many so some waste is to be expected.. a bit like GA sr years ago , but if that could be maximised on more .... who knows where he could take the side.

 

[catempire]

Id agree , the slow build up is almost always the wrong choice ... but what id like to know is how many scoring opportunities were created from Dangers inside 50's. I doubt Hawkins had more than 5 to 10 setshots from a Danger ball. Even when Danger seemed to make good contact and put it to Hawkins advantage it just didn't seem to work out to often. Long or short , I hope his breaks create more scores in 2017.

I suspect we all see different things. To my eye the quick Dangerfield entry was the most efficient path to goal in 2016. I want others to follow his decisive lead.

 

[Partridge]

I suspect we all see different things. To my eye the quick Dangerfield entry was the most efficient path to goal in 2016. I want others to follow his decisive lead.

Yeah I think the only issue with that method is sometimes Dangerfield's disposal, but certainly not the approach.

 

[catempire]

Yeah I think the only issue with that method is sometimes Dangerfield's disposal, but certainly not the approach.

No doubt he sprays a few but when you get it 35 times you inevitably will.

Champion Data rates his kicking above average by the way. Duncan and Motlop way out ahead for us in hitting targets inside 50.

 

[Partridge]

No doubt he sprays a few but when you get it 35 times you inevitably will.

Champion Data rates his kicking above average by the way. Duncan and Motlop way out ahead for us in hitting targets inside 50.

With Dangerfield is could be when he sprays one he tends to make them good.

No surprise with Duncan. He's usually excellent. Motlop's normally pretty reliable.

 

[cynical]

Bombing forward is fine when you have dominant talls who can get to the drop of the ball first and good smalls who can crumb, we have neither.

Hawkins is a great 1 on 1 player but if the ball isnt to his advantage then he is slow to the drop.

Danger playing more forward helps deal with one of our main deficiency it's just a matter of if the other guys will step up.

Reality is we just dont have all the tools to be a serious contender .

 

[Bobby_]

Be good if it was 35 times Dangerfield was getting the pill but it's not.
More like 31 times he gets it and you can bet 4 of them are clangers.

 

[00VicWard001]

He's not always the most accurate kick when he does that either.

That's his way of being unpredictable. Maybe Crawford should have factored this in.