Opinion Collingwood Almanac 2016

[Saintly Viewed]

Gee I disagree with so much of this post.

Marsh is the only key position player I regret us losing and not sure the club could have done anything about that. In fact I'm sure they would have kept Brown or Frost if they thought it was a real possibility. Dunn then required when Marsh went home. (Keefe is there for backup as well but is really an unknown quantity, no to hopeful with him)
Witts complete plodder and reminds me of having Cam Wood as back up, would rather go with Cox if Brodie misses.
The main beef you have with Wells and Mayne is the salary we are paying them but it's only a problem if it prevents us from recruiting a star in the future or lose one of our youngsters to more cash, I'm pretty sure the list managers spend all year on this stuff and know the structure of contracts going forward. If their salary costs us in the future then I'll join the criticism.

Harvey the only one of those veterans that I would have entertained and would rather roll the dice with Wells as I think his impact could be greater if he holds up. As for NDS, Petrie, Henderson, and Bartel, I wouldn't have even entertained any of them. Them making us more competitive game day is for the likes of Elliott and co returning and the youngsters improving, not old list cloggers here for one year. I'd rather see Ramsey and Shaz be given time instead of Henderson who is a very 'uncontested' footballer. NDS is another 'uncontested' beast who keeps Aish. Wills, Phillips and co in the VFL , they should all be trying to break/cement into the 22 without him in the road. Petrie was putrid last year. Bartel was retired by Geelong at the perfect time.

(I don't know enough about WHE to comment on him)

Caveat: Always enjoy reading your stuff KM even if I disagree.

Interesting points raised.

The real question to me is the value we should place on an older player and how many such players should we carry?

I feel a few older wiser good citizens is terrific. Though not too many.
We have Wells, I'm rapped. He is silky. If healthy he will add immensely.
As you say, salary is irrelevant unless it poses trouble later on.
Though I prefer to get them cheap, but might be loaded at the front so meh, they pay what they pay.

I would have loved B Harvey, even for one season. Imagine his work ethic and it's affect and teaching to players like McLarty, De Goey, Maynard, Aish, Wills etc etc etc.
It's invaluable in my view. Would I prefer such a great over the punt on Mackie? I would, yes.

But the list is what it is. Overall I'm happy to back our improvement.

Good points though. The salary ultimately is a big meh to me, assuming we are smart enough to work the angles from 95% use to 105% use depending on our need.

 

[Knightmare]

Would Moneyball work in the AFL?

Its different to US Sports

Clubs have their own formulas already.

They can always be improved. But it is common place for clubs to target particular stats, associate that with success by position, and use a formula based on stats, attributes by position etc to help decide a draft board.

Gee I disagree with so much of this post.

Marsh is the only key position player I regret us losing and not sure the club could have done anything about that. In fact I'm sure they would have kept Brown or Frost if they thought it was a real possibility. Dunn then required when Marsh went home. (Keefe is there for backup as well but is really an unknown quantity, no to hopeful with him)
Witts complete plodder and reminds me of having Cam Wood as back up, would rather go with Cox if Brodie misses.
The main beef you have with Wells and Mayne is the salary we are paying them but it's only a problem if it prevents us from recruiting a star in the future or lose one of our youngsters to more cash, I'm pretty sure the list managers spend all year on this stuff and know the structure of contracts going forward. If their salary costs us in the future then I'll join the criticism.

Harvey the only one of those veterans that I would have entertained and would rather roll the dice with Wells as I think his impact could be greater if he holds up. As for NDS, Petrie, Henderson, and Bartel, I wouldn't have even entertained any of them. Them making us more competitive game day is for the likes of Elliott and co returning and the youngsters improving, not old list cloggers here for one year. I'd rather see Ramsey and Shaz be given time instead of Henderson who is a very 'uncontested' footballer. NDS is another 'uncontested' beast who keeps Aish. Wills, Phillips and co in the VFL , they should all be trying to break/cement into the 22 without him in the road. Petrie was putrid last year. Bartel was retired by Geelong at the perfect time.

(I don't know enough about WHE to comment on him)

Caveat: Always enjoy reading your stuff KM even if I disagree.

It's all about the quality of discussion.

Agree/disagree never matters. Everyone should form their own informed and independent opinion. Same with politics, same with everything in life.

Marsh is an unfortunate loss. He still for me had further scope to develop and could have been a long term piece.

I also agree with the question-mark status of Keeffe. With the two years out of the game, it's unclear how far back he is.

Dunn is fine. I watched him during the VFL finals and had the chance to observe an interview of him - he was after the grand final loss clearly of the mindset that he wanted to continue his AFL career.

Witts is where I can't agree. Wood I was calling from 2010 wasn't good enough and from 2011 I was firmly of the view that he needed to be traded/delisted. Witts I'm ok with at AFL level. For me (unlike Wood), Witts is a servicable ruckman who can either be lead ruckman or depth ruckman. His VFL form through the second half of the season caught my eye, flat out dominating other ruckmen. His problem is Grundy being a best 5 in the game ruckman already. On a team without a good ruckman (eg. Richmond/Carlton/Essendon etc) he would be a fine lead ruckman and able to handle the mantle. He is a better tap ruckman than Grundy (x7 45+ hitout games in VFL with his 59+62+52 in consecutive games - these numbers will translate well to AFL), is moderately mobile and finds just enough of the ball around the ground not to be a liability. He early career followed up exceptionally but that is an area of his game that has regressed, but given it's something he could do, I feel it's something he can rediscover. He's someone where with either as a lead ruckman or as a depth ruckman, I'd be comfortable with him.

My problems with the Mayne and Wells contracts are that we could have signed a large group of quality veterans or other types, still had greater salary cap space and improved the team significantly more per dollar spent.
eg. Brent Harvey (is better than Wells), Ricky Henderson and not have to lose anyone else - Cloke (more a genuine key forward than Mayne), Brown, Witts, Frost, Williams to make salary cap space while still maintaining complete list flexibility going forward.
This also would have allowed us greater flexibility through the draft to pick the best players available and maximise value gained and leave the selecting of key position players for 2017 when the group available looks more solid.

In terms of Harvey v Wells. Not only do I favour Harvey's standard of play (higher disposal, goal, mark per game numbers) but then there is also higher kick rating (highest kick rating in AFL over past six seasons) and hurt factor by foot, best decision maker in the game under pressure. Harvey's durability is far superior only dropping below 20 games one season since 1997 (his second season) and I suspect more games over the years he could have signed with Collingwood would result than with Wells. With two seasons from Harvey = eg. 45 games, Wells might have up to three seasons in him and you might only get 40 games (which may be relatively generous given 31 games in past three seasons) from him with relatively lower quality of match play.

Mayne as a forward is an excellent pressure player but probably playing CHF or at least more generally in the front half, his goal per game and contested mark numbers will be by well position below standard. He's very good at what he does but essentially a limited role player. His durability is very good but his impact is likely only to be a mild one and leave us feeling small overall up front.

In terms of the other veterans. I don't necessarily see any of them getting in the way of anyone. They can each be genuine best 22 players for 1-2 years, Henderson more given he is still young enough. I don't necessarily see our young players as being so great that they necessarily keep the better ones out for too long. Those that are good enough would still get games and those who are of a lower standard can play in the reserves where they should be playing. That might mean the likes of Aish spend much of the season in the twos, but that's fine by me as he and others aren't yet performing to an AFL standard. Dal Santo in the case of Aish would be someone I'd play ahead of him any day of the week with the higher disposals per game, disposal efficiency, contested possessions, tackles, marks, inside 50s, clearances etc per game.
Wills + Phillips also, I have no issue keeping in the VFL until they earn the games.

Injuries happen, so youth from outside the clubs best 22 will still get their share of games anyway, regardless. It's just a healthier list position to have those veterans there to improve the clubs best 22 in the immediate and aid the youth in the development for the long term, passing on their experience.

Strategically it's the way to go, ahead of ahead of keeping mid or late career depth types who aren't looking like best 22 players - White, J.Thomas, Keeffe, Oxley, Goldsack, Greenwood and Blair are some of those top of mind names I'd be looking to replace with the types of names I've discussed throughout this thread.

 

[TradeDraft]

Knightmare do you know what Stats they look at to use in a Formula?

 

[Schraderbrau]

Clubs have their own formulas already.

They can always be improved. But it is common place for clubs to target particular stats, associate that with success by position, and use a formula based on stats, attributes by position etc to help decide a draft board.



It's all about the quality of discussion.

Agree/disagree never matters. Everyone should form their own informed and independent opinion. Same with politics, same with everything in life.

Marsh is an unfortunate loss. He still for me had further scope to develop and could have been a long term piece.

I also agree with the question-mark status of Keeffe. With the two years out of the game, it's unclear how far back he is.

Dunn is fine. I watched him during the VFL finals and had the chance to observe an interview of him - he was after the grand final loss clearly of the mindset that he wanted to continue his AFL career.

Witts is where I can't agree. Wood I was calling from 2010 wasn't good enough and from 2011 I was firmly of the view that he needed to be traded/delisted. Witts I'm ok with at AFL level. For me (unlike Wood), Witts is a servicable ruckman who can either be lead ruckman or depth ruckman. His VFL form through the second half of the season caught my eye, flat out dominating other ruckmen. His problem is Grundy being a best 5 in the game ruckman already. On a team without a good ruckman (eg. Richmond/Carlton/Essendon etc) he would be a fine lead ruckman and able to handle the mantle. He is a better tap ruckman than Grundy (x7 45+ hitout games in VFL with his 59+62+52 in consecutive games - these numbers will translate well to AFL), is moderately mobile and finds just enough of the ball around the ground not to be a liability. He early career followed up exceptionally but that is an area of his game that has regressed, but given it's something he could do, I feel it's something he can rediscover. He's someone where with either as a lead ruckman or as a depth ruckman, I'd be comfortable with him.

My problems with the Mayne and Wells contracts are that we could have signed a large group of quality veterans or other types, still had greater salary cap space and improved the team significantly more per dollar spent.
eg. Brent Harvey (is better than Wells), Ricky Henderson and not have to lose anyone else - Cloke (more a genuine key forward than Mayne), Brown, Witts, Frost, Williams to make salary cap space while still maintaining complete list flexibility going forward.
This also would have allowed us greater flexibility through the draft to pick the best players available and maximise value gained and leave the selecting of key position players for 2017 when the group available looks more solid.

In terms of Harvey v Wells. Not only do I favour Harvey's standard of play (higher disposal, goal, mark per game numbers) but then there is also higher kick rating (highest kick rating in AFL over past six seasons) and hurt factor by foot, best decision maker in the game under pressure. Harvey's durability is far superior only dropping below 20 games one season since 1997 (his second season) and I suspect more games over the years he could have signed with Collingwood would result than with Wells. With two seasons from Harvey = eg. 45 games, Wells might have up to three seasons in him and you might only get 40 games (which may be relatively generous given 31 games in past three seasons) from him with relatively lower quality of match play.

Mayne as a forward is an excellent pressure player but probably playing CHF or at least more generally in the front half, his goal per game and contested mark numbers will be by well position below standard. He's very good at what he does but essentially a limited role player. His durability is very good but his impact is likely only to be a mild one and leave us feeling small overall up front.

In terms of the other veterans. I don't necessarily see any of them getting in the way of anyone. They can each be genuine best 22 players for 1-2 years, Henderson more given he is still young enough. I don't necessarily see our young players as being so great that they necessarily keep the better ones out for too long. Those that are good enough would still get games and those who are of a lower standard can play in the reserves where they should be playing. That might mean the likes of Aish spend much of the season in the twos, but that's fine by me as he and others aren't yet performing to an AFL standard. Dal Santo in the case of Aish would be someone I'd play ahead of him any day of the week with the higher disposals per game, disposal efficiency, contested possessions, tackles, marks, inside 50s, clearances etc per game.
Wills + Phillips also, I have no issue keeping in the VFL until they earn the games.

Injuries happen, so youth from outside the clubs best 22 will still get their share of games anyway, regardless. It's just a healthier list position to have those veterans there to improve the clubs best 22 in the immediate and aid the youth in the development for the long term, passing on their experience.

Strategically it's the way to go, ahead of ahead of keeping mid or late career depth types who aren't looking like best 22 players - White, J.Thomas, Keeffe, Oxley, Goldsack, Greenwood and Blair are some of those top of mind names I'd be looking to replace with the types of names I've discussed throughout this thread.

This isn't a criticism because you do use the numbers to make a compelling case that Harvey should have been picked up. But I'm curious though, do you have any explanation or a suspicion as to why he was ignored by all 18 clubs. Obviously they have access to all the same stats that we do so there has to be something else at play that caused this whether it be ageism, defensive work ethic or something else at play.

Also with Mayne in, presumable an improved Cox and Elliot (hopefully) as well, I think there's a good chance they try White in defence again, even if its only as a swing man. He looked too good there in the VFL last season not to have another look imo. He had good form as a forward in the second half of the season but he was effectively conscripted there because of injuries. In 2017 the opposite holds in that we are deficient in defence and adequate in the forwardline.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

This isn't a criticism because you do use the numbers to make a compelling case that Harvey should have been picked up. But I'm curious though, do you have any explanation or a suspicion as to why he was ignored by all 18 clubs. Obviously they have access to all the same stats that we do so there has to be something else at play that caused this whether it be ageism, defensive work ethic or something else at play.

Also with Mayne in, presumable an improved Cox and Elliot (hopefully) as well, I think there's a good chance they try White in defence again, even if its only as a swing man. He looked too good there in the VFL last season not to have another look imo. He had good form as a forward in the second half of the season but he was effectively conscripted there because of injuries. In 2017 the opposite holds in that we are deficient in defence and adequate in the forwardline.

I'd suggest Harvey being bypassed by the other 17 clubs is simple age related.
Clubs are paranoid of going down a dad's army road, silly but true.

Let's use Essendon as an example. After all the self earned difficulties these past few years a player even for one year like Harvey would be fantastic for the re- grouping and readjusting to their future. Parish would gain so much.
For us, all the younger types could see and learn from Harvey.
Can't buy that experience. Actually we could have.

But it's not to be.
I'm not fussed on the salary cap, as we don't see the contracts and they likely are managed well enough I imagine.

I like the idea of a few older types though not lots of them, then in my view you become a bit old in the tooth. Growth is integral.
I'd like to see our group come through together, Moore, De Goey, Maynard, Grundy, Elliot, Aish, Adams, Treloar etc etc etc

But it's an interesting discussion.

 

[Greening Magic]

Clubs have their own formulas already.

They can always be improved. But it is common place for clubs to target particular stats, associate that with success by position, and use a formula based on stats, attributes by position etc to help decide a draft board.



It's all about the quality of discussion.

Agree/disagree never matters. Everyone should form their own informed and independent opinion. Same with politics, same with everything in life.

Marsh is an unfortunate loss. He still for me had further scope to develop and could have been a long term piece.

I also agree with the question-mark status of Keeffe. With the two years out of the game, it's unclear how far back he is.

Dunn is fine. I watched him during the VFL finals and had the chance to observe an interview of him - he was after the grand final loss clearly of the mindset that he wanted to continue his AFL career.

Witts is where I can't agree. Wood I was calling from 2010 wasn't good enough and from 2011 I was firmly of the view that he needed to be traded/delisted. Witts I'm ok with at AFL level. For me (unlike Wood), Witts is a servicable ruckman who can either be lead ruckman or depth ruckman. His VFL form through the second half of the season caught my eye, flat out dominating other ruckmen. His problem is Grundy being a best 5 in the game ruckman already. On a team without a good ruckman (eg. Richmond/Carlton/Essendon etc) he would be a fine lead ruckman and able to handle the mantle. He is a better tap ruckman than Grundy (x7 45+ hitout games in VFL with his 59+62+52 in consecutive games - these numbers will translate well to AFL), is moderately mobile and finds just enough of the ball around the ground not to be a liability. He early career followed up exceptionally but that is an area of his game that has regressed, but given it's something he could do, I feel it's something he can rediscover. He's someone where with either as a lead ruckman or as a depth ruckman, I'd be comfortable with him.

My problems with the Mayne and Wells contracts are that we could have signed a large group of quality veterans or other types, still had greater salary cap space and improved the team significantly more per dollar spent.
eg. Brent Harvey (is better than Wells), Ricky Henderson and not have to lose anyone else - Cloke (more a genuine key forward than Mayne), Brown, Witts, Frost, Williams to make salary cap space while still maintaining complete list flexibility going forward.
This also would have allowed us greater flexibility through the draft to pick the best players available and maximise value gained and leave the selecting of key position players for 2017 when the group available looks more solid.

In terms of Harvey v Wells. Not only do I favour Harvey's standard of play (higher disposal, goal, mark per game numbers) but then there is also higher kick rating (highest kick rating in AFL over past six seasons) and hurt factor by foot, best decision maker in the game under pressure. Harvey's durability is far superior only dropping below 20 games one season since 1997 (his second season) and I suspect more games over the years he could have signed with Collingwood would result than with Wells. With two seasons from Harvey = eg. 45 games, Wells might have up to three seasons in him and you might only get 40 games (which may be relatively generous given 31 games in past three seasons) from him with relatively lower quality of match play.

Mayne as a forward is an excellent pressure player but probably playing CHF or at least more generally in the front half, his goal per game and contested mark numbers will be by well position below standard. He's very good at what he does but essentially a limited role player. His durability is very good but his impact is likely only to be a mild one and leave us feeling small overall up front.

In terms of the other veterans. I don't necessarily see any of them getting in the way of anyone. They can each be genuine best 22 players for 1-2 years, Henderson more given he is still young enough. I don't necessarily see our young players as being so great that they necessarily keep the better ones out for too long. Those that are good enough would still get games and those who are of a lower standard can play in the reserves where they should be playing. That might mean the likes of Aish spend much of the season in the twos, but that's fine by me as he and others aren't yet performing to an AFL standard. Dal Santo in the case of Aish would be someone I'd play ahead of him any day of the week with the higher disposals per game, disposal efficiency, contested possessions, tackles, marks, inside 50s, clearances etc per game.
Wills + Phillips also, I have no issue keeping in the VFL until they earn the games.

Injuries happen, so youth from outside the clubs best 22 will still get their share of games anyway, regardless. It's just a healthier list position to have those veterans there to improve the clubs best 22 in the immediate and aid the youth in the development for the long term, passing on their experience.

Strategically it's the way to go, ahead of ahead of keeping mid or late career depth types who aren't looking like best 22 players - White, J.Thomas, Keeffe, Oxley, Goldsack, Greenwood and Blair are some of those top of mind names I'd be looking to replace with the types of names I've discussed throughout this thread.

I think it's fair to say that we rate players differently.

With a full list Wills Phillips and maybe Aish already start in the 2's.
We'll have to agree to disagree on Henderson, unless he's loose man in defence he's a liability. He's another Oxley and swapping the 2 on the list would have achieved nothing.
Also NDS, I personally wouldn't have played him in front of anybody.
I wouldn't have minded Boomer on the list at the expense of Blair as I think Mayne plays Blairs role and a bit more. (I think we all know what we get from Mayne, nothing more, nothing less). I don't see him playing much key position at all with Moore/Cox/White taking those roles. He needs to be surrounded with skilled types Fasolo and Elliott.
White, Greenwood, Keefe, and Goldsack are kept for structural, depth and best 22 reasons, different for each.

Going forward list wise you surely can't have Wells, Boomer, NDS, Petrie all on our list, we'd be exactly where North were except they'd all be older.
Then we'd have to chair them all off again.
One was enough, Boomer maybe at a pinch.

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare do you know what Stats they look at to use in a Formula?

From my understanding/ what I have been led to believe is all AFL clubs have a computer program they use where they can weight stats on importance to determine their draft boards.

For eg. if you rate contested ball winning over everything you could have the players total stats including disposal efficiencies etc all together and then do something like double the points value awarded to those who win the contest ball.
Perhaps another club values metres gained and gives that a particularly high rating.

From my knowledge it is some kind of complete stats database where all the stats can be manipulated to do whatever you like then you can order the players from there.

Would be cool stuff to have access to if indeed that is correct.

This isn't a criticism because you do use the numbers to make a compelling case that Harvey should have been picked up. But I'm curious though, do you have any explanation or a suspicion as to why he was ignored by all 18 clubs. Obviously they have access to all the same stats that we do so there has to be something else at play that caused this whether it be ageism, defensive work ethic or something else at play.

Also with Mayne in, presumable an improved Cox and Elliot (hopefully) as well, I think there's a good chance they try White in defence again, even if its only as a swing man. He looked too good there in the VFL last season not to have another look imo. He had good form as a forward in the second half of the season but he was effectively conscripted there because of injuries. In 2017 the opposite holds in that we are deficient in defence and adequate in the forwardline.

Age in large part (with clubs based on age thinking) - ok, he is still productive now, but we don't want someone who can be productive for one more season, then maybe go around for another season after that. Clubs seem to want longer term players and no club has stepped forward identifying him as someone who fits their list needs, by contrast to say Petrie who received the offer from West Coast due to the Naitanui injury, identifying that need and thinking to themselves - we just need someone for one year to give us another option.
Overall in the Harvey situation, only the contending teams considered him. Hawthorn with the trades of Mitchell and Lewis conceded they're no longer a contender and went on not to consider. Geelong passed due to salary cap limitations and wanting to retain flexibility. Western Bulldogs felt they were fine without (personally for me they would have benefited most). Then the other Vic teams decided they're not close enough to contention and the interstate teams felt it was too much effort. GWS of the interstaters should also have made Harvey a priority get. They drafted De Boer? Seriously? I know they want pressure in their front half, but that's ignoring way too much quality.

My view is while clubs need to have a long term orientation, you've got a senior list of up to 40 and then another 4 rookies. If you've got a guy who even if they're a one year rental can be a genuine best 22 player and then on top of that provide leadership and a quality example on the training track. The immediate and long term benefits which come with that just aren't receiving the correct appreciation as they do in other codes who from a list management perspective already have those learnings/understandings of the value of veterans who provide leadership and are still in playing shape.

I'm with you on White down back. I really want to see that. White up forward only had the 23 goals, 86 marks and 211 disposals. They're borderline serviceable numbers, but when you're looking at someone who will be 29 in January. If we're to persist with White as we are, ideally another position is found for him. From an attribute standpoint I'm firmly of the opinion that he would make a better key defender given his size and athletic attributes.
Up front I'd have Moore and Mayne as my key forwards, Cox the resting ruck and something like a third key forward (which is a good balance in my view with Mayne a tackling/pressure specialist forward). Then Elliott/Fasolo playing taller than their positions as marking types make that an ok balance, albeit probably without that special ground level talent.

Down back, with Reid injury prone and no particularly terrific second key defender. There is the possibility that White could earn one of the key defence posts.

Up forward, I just don't see the room for White, barring injury, unless he plays ahead of Cox, which I'm not keen on, wanting to get as many games into Cox as possible with my view being he just needs to get to those 40-50 AFL games and he'll be a better half of best 22 standard type - as per Myke Pike with Sydney, if not a slightly better version.

I think it's fair to say that we rate players differently.

With a full list Wills Phillips and maybe Aish already start in the 2's.
We'll have to agree to disagree on Henderson, unless he's loose man in defence he's a liability. He's another Oxley and swapping the 2 on the list would have achieved nothing.
Also NDS, I personally wouldn't have played him in front of anybody.
I wouldn't have minded Boomer on the list at the expense of Blair as I think Mayne plays Blairs role and a bit more. (I think we all know what we get from Mayne, nothing more, nothing less). I don't see him playing much key position at all with Moore/Cox/White taking those roles. He needs to be surrounded with skilled types Fasolo and Elliott.
White, Greenwood, Keefe, and Goldsack are kept for structural, depth and best 22 reasons, different for each.

Going forward list wise you surely can't have Wells, Boomer, NDS, Petrie all on our list, we'd be exactly where North were except they'd all be older.
Then we'd have to chair them all off again.
One was enough, Boomer maybe at a pinch.

The differences I see between Henderson and Oxley is pace and penetration. Henderson is much quicker (Oxley's pace is poor) and Henderson kicks it up to 65m v Oxley's maybe 55m? Both highly productive and in terms of roles they have similar abilities/limitations otherwise, but with the lack of any meaningful rebound since Leon Davis back in 2011, I see room with our other backs other than Reid poor-below average users.

I wouldn't have signed Wells (at the money/length of contract he signed). The players I mentioned on Page 1 pre-trade week though I'd have taken as many of as possible - eg. Boomer, NDS, Bartel, Enright, Henderson etc (whoever of those would be open to signing).

Up forward I'd hope White doesn't get many if any games. I'd hope we have more talented guys coming through to keep him out - Moore, Cox and the small + medium types.

My proposition has been to cut the likes of White, Greenwood, Keeffe, Goldsack and similar who are depth and adequate in favour of veterans who can provide superior leadership and superior on field performance. After that it just comes down to talent identification and what you look for.

 

[Greening Magic]

I wouldn't have signed Wells (at the money/length of contract he signed). The players I mentioned on Page 1 pre-trade week though I'd have taken as many of as possible - eg. Boomer, NDS, Bartel, Enright, Henderson etc (whoever of those would be open to signing).

Strongly agree to disagree.

My proposition has been to cut the likes of White, Greenwood, Keeffe, Goldsack and similar who are depth and adequate in favour of veterans who can provide superior leadership and superior on field performance. After that it just comes down to talent identification and what you look for.

Superior on field performance? Petrie? I'll take White. NDS? I'll take Greenwood. Henderson? Oxley same player.
Getting 1 year out of Enright, Bartel, Boomer? Keefe, Goldsack required for depth as tallish defenders and I'll take what Greenwood offers before a farewell year for Enright and Bartel. Boomer the only one I wouldn't have minded.

Up forward I'd hope White doesn't get many if any games. I'd hope we have more talented guys coming through to keep him out - Moore, Cox and the small + medium types.

Moore talented guys? Not sure who they are on our list at that height/second ruck option. Cox would be the only one who could play that role and that depends on his progression. Thought White was excellent when in the ruck giving Brodie a break. Always finds front spot at the throw in's and offers a bit around the ground. A more balanced forward line this year containing Moore, Fas, Elliott, Mayne, resting mids and maybe Cox means White doesn't have to be a main target which he's not equipped for. Think he can play a very useful role in the team. Getting the balance right will depend on where they play Cox and White. A lot depends on whether Cox can improve but at the moment White is a long way ahead. Whether they can play in the same side is another issue. Either way White is must to remain on the list at this stage and plays Round 1.

Thanks for the discussion KM. Were probably just going around in circles now with our own views on players and the list going forward.
Cheers for all the info you provide for the board.

 

[mike123]

I think most of those veterans don't offer enough of an upgrade on our current players to be worth taking up a list spot for a year. That and the average players spots they're taking are still contracted so then we'd just have double the amount of list cloggers. Its just sideways recruiting.

Sure Bartel would be better than Greenwood, but his lack of pace was caught out in finals anyways and I wouldn't have Greenwood in my best 22 anyways so he's not pushing someone out and improving our side just clogging the VFL up. Henderson is better than Oxley but being better than Oxley isn't something to brag about. Yes we've lacked drive down in the back since Davis, Shaw and Lumumba but bringing in subpar players to try fill that gap doesn't work. Henderson would just add to the list of failures in Russell, Clarke, Young and Armstrong IMO. He'd also add to list of average half backs we have who have shown they're not good enough or taking us to the next level in Oxley, Langdon, Smith and Sinclair. You're better off developing players that can be a mainstay and that can potentially give us that drive and maybe take us to the next level Scharenberg, Ramsay and Maynard or recruit players that can like we did with Howe or recruit consistent best 22 players that have given their previous clubs that drive like Geelong did with Touhy.

On Wells v Harvey we should have got both. Both are guns both still have their speed and both still showed they can rip games apart. Also given our relative lack of pace and footskills they would have complimented the side nicely.

Petrie is an older slower White, he kicked more goals than White but also rucked allot less. Instead of just having White on our list we can have White and a better and a slightly better White which is still up for debate.

Dal Santo - meh he's what Aish with more uturns and without the upside and even then Aish is borderline best 22.

I agree we should get more veterans but not guys who are arguably slight upgrades on our average players, we should revruit veterans who are genuine guns and still performing to a HIGH level.

 

[pugsville]

White I'm not a keen on him down back, (if desperate down back and other forwards firing would look at.) For me he's looked too lost down back, his best moments intercept but dubious actually defending. He's OK up forward, goes missing, teases, but does offer 25-30 gaols in his hot/cold fashion. Until we have something better I'd keep him forward , useful second ruck. Would run through other options down back first.

 

[TradeDraft]

I think most of those veterans don't offer enough of an upgrade on our current players to be worth taking up a list spot for a year. That and the average players spots they're taking are still contracted so then we'd just have double the amount of list cloggers. Its just sideways recruiting.

Sure Bartel would be better than Greenwood, but his lack of pace was caught out in finals anyways and I wouldn't have Greenwood in my best 22 anyways so he's not pushing someone out and improving our side just clogging the VFL up. Henderson is better than Oxley but being better than Oxley isn't something to brag about. Yes we've lacked drive down in the back since Davis, Shaw and Lumumba but bringing in subpar players to try fill that gap doesn't work. Henderson would just add to the list of failures in Russell, Clarke, Young and Armstrong IMO. He'd also add to list of average half backs we have who have shown they're not good enough or taking us to the next level in Oxley, Langdon, Smith and Sinclair. You're better off developing players that can be a mainstay and that can potentially give us that drive and maybe take us to the next level Scharenberg, Ramsay and Maynard or recruit players that can like we did with Howe or recruit consistent best 22 players that have given their previous clubs that drive like Geelong did with Touhy.

On Wells v Harvey we should have got both. Both are guns both still have their speed and both still showed they can rip games apart. Also given our relative lack of pace and footskills they would have complimented the side nicely.

Petrie is an older slower White, he kicked more goals than White but also rucked allot less. Instead of just having White on our list we can have White and a better and a slightly better White which is still up for debate.

Dal Santo - meh he's what Aish with more uturns and without the upside and even then Aish is borderline best 22.

I agree we should get more veterans but not guys who are arguably slight upgrades on our average players, we should revruit veterans who are genuine guns and still performing to a HIGH level.

Agree with Getting Both Harvey and Wells be good Signing's.

Wish won't be Borderline Best 22 for Long