Oppo Camp Dangerfield's Gone (Zero tolerance to trolling) - READ THREAD LINKED IN OP BEFORE POSTING

[baldandbroke]

He's very good at finishing around goals though. Maybe not so much at pinpoint passing, which means he probably wouldn't be a good fit at Hawthorn.

Here are PD's stats for the last 4 years ... compared to (Sloane in brackets)

Goal Accuracy
2015 - 48.8% (64.7%)
2014 - 38.6% (52.0%)
2013 - 51.7% (41.4%)
2012 - 62.2% (63.3%)
Average = 50.3% (55.3%)

Effective Disposal %
2015 - 67.3% (68.5%)
2014 - 61.9% (72.2%)
2013 - 63.7% (73.5%)
2012 - 63.1% (70.7%)
Average = 64.0% (71.2%)

Clangers (total / per game)
2015 - 77 / 3.3 (48 / 2.7)
2014 - 66 / 3.0 (50 / 2.3)
2013 - 65 / 3.2 (37 / 1.8)
2012 - 78 / 3.1 (47 / 2.0)
Average = 71.5 / 3.2 (45.5 / 2.1)

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Guys as much as I would be reasonably satisfied with pick 9 and Cockatoo, it's not going to happen. The best we could realistically hope for is 1st round pick, 2nd round pick (hopefully upgraded via Brisbane) and Murdoch or Stanley as the player in the deal.

Stiffy ...would you be happy with Stanley?

 

[douglyzia]

Here are PD's stats for the last 4 years ... compared to (Sloane in brackets)

Goal Accuracy
2015 - 48.8% (64.7%)
2014 - 38.6% (52.0%)
2013 - 51.7% (41.4%)
2012 - 62.2% (63.3%)
Average = 50.3% (55.3%)

Effective Disposal %
2015 - 67.3% (68.5%)
2014 - 61.9% (72.2%)
2013 - 63.7% (73.5%)
2012 - 63.1% (70.7%)
Average = 64.0% (71.2%)

Clangers (total / per game)
2015 - 77 / 3.3 (48 / 2.7)
2014 - 66 / 3.0 (50 / 2.3)
2013 - 65 / 3.2 (37 / 1.8)
2012 - 78 / 3.1 (47 / 2.0)
Average = 71.5 / 3.2 (45.5 / 2.1)

Despite what the stats say, my perception of Dangerfield, rightly or wrongly, was that he was a genuine gamebreaker/matchwinner for the club; a stature that Sloane hasn't quite reached.

Now, if you're saying the stats say that Sloane is the superior player, I would hope to God you're right for our sake. I think, unfortunately, that Sloane's output may diminish somewhat in 2016 if he becomes the primary target for opposition taggers in the absence of Dangerfield.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Despite what the stats say, my perception of Dangerfield, rightly or wrongly, was that he was a genuine gamebreaker/matchwinner for the club; a stature that Sloane hasn't quite reached.

Now, if you're saying the stats say that Sloane is the superior player, I would hope to God you're right for our sake. I think, unfortunately, that Sloane's output may diminish somewhat in 2016 if he becomes the primary target for opposition taggers in the absence of Dangerfield.

Even with Danger in the side many opposition sides chose to tag Sloane instead of Dangerfield

Hopefully B Crouch will be fit so if Sloane does draw a heavy tag Crouch will get off the leash

Lets not also forget that tagging is quickly becoming the exception to the rule

 

[NikkiNoo]

Even with Danger in the side many opposition sides chose to tag Sloane instead of Dangerfield

Hopefully B Crouch will be fit so if Sloane does draw a heavy tag Crouch will get off the leash

Lets not also forget that tagging is quickly becoming the exception to the rule

and unlike Danger, Sloane can still get effective possessions while being tagged.

 

[Elite Crow]

and unlike Danger, Sloane can still get effective possessions while being tagged.

Rubbish, Danger did very well against a tag.

 

[Crow54]

Rubbish, Danger did very well against a tag.

Yes, one Bernie Vince comes to mind. He did well against him.

 

[Wright Away]

I love some of the posts by Geelong posters, it is why I am happy to have open threads like this. Sometimes you need a good laugh.

 

[Crow54]

Here are PD's stats for the last 4 years ... compared to (Sloane in brackets)

Goal Accuracy
2015 - 48.8% (64.7%)
2014 - 38.6% (52.0%)
2013 - 51.7% (41.4%)
2012 - 62.2% (63.3%)
Average = 50.3% (55.3%)

Effective Disposal %
2015 - 67.3% (68.5%)
2014 - 61.9% (72.2%)
2013 - 63.7% (73.5%)
2012 - 63.1% (70.7%)
Average = 64.0% (71.2%)

Clangers (total / per game)
2015 - 77 / 3.3 (48 / 2.7)
2014 - 66 / 3.0 (50 / 2.3)
2013 - 65 / 3.2 (37 / 1.8)
2012 - 78 / 3.1 (47 / 2.0)
Average = 71.5 / 3.2 (45.5 / 2.1)

I've always had more time for Sloane than Dangerfield. Maybe he's not as flashy, or just doesn't get noticed, or his possessions don't come at such crucial times?

 

[baldandbroke]

Despite what the stats say, my perception of Dangerfield, rightly or wrongly, was that he was a genuine gamebreaker/matchwinner for the club; a stature that Sloane hasn't quite reached.

Now, if you're saying the stats say that Sloane is the superior player, I would hope to God you're right for our sake. I think, unfortunately, that Sloane's output may diminish somewhat in 2016 if he becomes the primary target for opposition taggers in the absence of Dangerfield.

Nah, I was basically questioning your call that Dangerfield was good in front of the sticks and the other stats just flowed. I wanted to compare to someone and thought Sloane would be a good choice.

I actually do not think that Dangerfield is a genuine game-breaker or match-winner. He is a bull, that goes in and drags the ball out where others can't even get in. I'm not sure how much he actually brings beyond that. He can take a good contested mark, but his disposal is average ... especially under pressure. He doesn't chase a lot, he doesn't tackle a lot. I've never seen the mongrel in him.

Don't mis-read me, he is a player that provides unique and rare skills. I just don't think we used it all that well, and got much advantage from it.

 

[1990crow]

Yes, one Bernie Vince comes to mind. He did well against him.

Once in the season, good job

 

[headache1]

Yes, one Bernie Vince comes to mind. He did well against him.

What about all the other taggers he played against?

 

[adelaidecrows]

Rubbish, Danger did very well against a tag.

Not really. Don't get me wrong he wasn't a bad player and could impact games in other ways. He just isn't capable of consistently beating a tag like some of the best in the competition. Sam Mitchell, Luke Hodge, Nathan Fyfe, Scott Pendlebury all come to mind of players that just manage to shake a tag where as Dangerfield just couldnt. Robbie Gray is another one.

The problem the Crows have now is we will have that tag on one of our other midfielders so someone will have to stand up.

 

[baldandbroke]

Rubbish, Danger did very well against a tag.

I'm actually curious to see what he brings to Geelong. See if he was being completely mis-used and what another club uses him for.

I thought at the start of the season that Walsh had PD playing a much better brand of footy than what I had seen previously ... it was noticeable.

No doubt Danger will help Selwood, or will it be one of those "It looked so good on paper" things? I dunno.

Right now, I just want us to get the players that will help us next year and beyond ... PD's trade has a lot to do with that outcome.

 

[hey shorty]

I'm actually curious to see what he brings to Geelong. See if he was being completely mis-used and what another club uses him for.

I thought at the start of the season that Walsh had PD playing a much better brand of footy than what I had seen previously ... it was noticeable.

No doubt Danger will help Selwood, or will it be one of those "It looked so good on paper" things? I dunno.

Right now, I just want us to get the players that will help us next year and beyond ... PD's trade has a lot to do with that outcome.

They will have a star studded midfield that's for sure, but a quickly aging defence and injury prone forwardline.

 

[fpm84]

They may if it meant gaining Smith

We are hoping to get Smith to *help* Stanley.

Rhys's best role is as a relief ruck who can play forward (a la David Hale or Leigh Brown). He is damn good in this role.

We've haven't had a bona fide number one ruck since Ottens retired. McIntosh didn't work out and Simpson can't stay fit. Smith is exactly what we are hoping for. He and Stanley will play in tandem.

 

[jackster83]

I've always had more time for Sloane than Dangerfield. Maybe he's not as flashy, or just doesn't get noticed, or his possessions don't come at such crucial times?

Hopefully Sloane can get a clean run of it in 2016. We missed him badly this year. I'd like to see him break the 30 possession mark a bit more (he only did this twice this year) which he needs to do if he is to be seriously considered for AA (despite being ranked 5th in the AFL player rankings).

Also, would people be happy with pick 9 and two second rounders for Danger?

Collingwood give up their second rounder for Aish, and then Geelong give up Jansen and their third rounder to Brisbane for the second round pick that the Lions received from Collingwood.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

It'll be interesting to see how he goes playing in a team with no decent ruck.

 

[longdonkey]

Can Geelong give us 1st round pick in 2016 and then give their 2nd round 2016 to another club. I was of the understanding that clubs could only trade away one future pick

Good question - It would have originally been Adelaide's pick but I know what you're saying because they say if you trade your first round pick you can't trade anymore of your picks - I guess it comes down to if you on trade a pick - were you ever in possession of it?

 

[baldandbroke]

I think Geelong need picks, AFC need players that are an upgrade on what we have. If we get picks from the Geelong trade then I hope we use them on players in trade week.

I see Geelong and AFC at very different points of their development?

If you were to ask a Geelong supporter if they had a better list than North or Richmond or the Bulldogs or even Freo - I'm guessing you would be laughed of their board ... as they (like some Port supporters) would point to the draw and say that it was the main thing that stuffed them. They still see themselves as being on par with the Hawks, and once they get the "soft" draw from their ladder position in 2015 - they will climb right back to the top.

Ask the same question of an AFC supporter and we would be more cautious. We don't have much success in recent years, we are less bullish and want to see the results in front of us before we fly off half-cocked. We probably want to be challenged next year by playing the better teams, but are not going to predict where we will end with any confidence - and certainly not many would lock us into the top 6.

I think these are just reflections of where each club is coming from in recent years.

So, if you can try and be neutral, which club needs to replenish with youth from the draft and take a longer term approach (2018/19) to pushing for the top 4 - which club needs to pick up a few new players to be challenging in 2016/17?

 

[crowded house]

I can't help but feel I will be disapointed by the Danger trade.

To me the elephant in the room regarding danger's value are the other 'first round' trades that will happen.

I mean FFS, Cam McCarthy and Treloar look like they will each net 2x first round picks.

If we get anything less than that it will show our recruiting team to be incredibly soft. Danger IS worth more than these two. Danger WON'T get to Geelong in the draft. If we get anything less than what GWS will get for these picks it will be a fail.

I'm sick of our recruiting staff 'helping' our players get to their destination of choice like that's their job.

 

[jenny61_99]

I'm actually curious to see what he brings to Geelong. See if he was being completely mis-used and what another club uses him for.

I thought at the start of the season that Walsh had PD playing a much better brand of footy than what I had seen previously ... it was noticeable.

No doubt Danger will help Selwood, or will it be one of those "It looked so good on paper" things? I dunno.

Right now, I just want us to get the players that will help us next year and beyond ... PD's trade has a lot to do with that outcome.

And how he goes not having Jacobs tapping the ball down.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

I can't help but feel I will be disapointed by the Danger trade.

To me the elephant in the room regarding danger's value are the other 'first round' trades that will happen.

I mean FFS, Cam McCarthy and Treloar look like they will each net 2x first round picks.

If we get anything less than that it will show our recruiting team to be incredibly soft. Danger IS worth more than these two. Danger WON'T get to Geelong in the draft. If we get anything less than what GWS will get for these picks it will be a fail.

I'm sick of our recruiting staff 'helping' our players get to their destination of choice like that's their job.

Freo need to pay massive overs to get GWS interested in a McCarthy deal

Personally I don't think it will happen and I think Freo will target Black from North instead

 

[1970crow]

And how he goes not having Jacobs tapping the ball down.

Thommo is Jacobs primary target.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Lets not be having a debate about PD''s football ability.