Daniel Rich v Byrce Gibbs

[blues4flag]

I'm guessing the logic here is that you think he can't improve much because he's already good? Or is there some other reason?

I think he's good because he's already developed in areas where most other 18 year olds are not. I like to think I've made it clear why in my previous posts (particularly the one above). Though it seems pretty obvious to me why that leads to comparatively less improvement.

 

[Grimreepah]

I'd suggest it is a combination of both.

It seems to be a fairly vague concept that gives people the opportunity to say my guy is better than your guy irrespective of how well they are playing.

 

[Grimreepah]

I think he's good because he's already developed in areas where most other 18 year olds are not. I like to think I've made it clear why in my previous posts (particularly the one above). Though it seems pretty obvious to me why that leads to comparatively less improvement.

As I have stated previously body size is just one aspect of a player's capabilities. Unless Rich is the perfect player, or there is something specific that is stopping him from becoming so, then I would imagine a first year player still has a fair bit of improvement in him.

 

[blues4flag]

As I have stated previously body size is just one aspect of a player's capabilities. Unless Rich is the perfect player, or there is something specific that is stopping him from becoming so, then I would imagine a first year player still has a fair bit of improvement in him.

And as I have stated previously:

I already addressed points 3 and 4 in the half of my post that you conveniently decided to leave out. Of course there are aspects of his game that he can and likely will improve in, however I very much doubt that physical development is one (minimal improvements, maybe). Given that this is one of the major limiting factors on draftees competing successfully from day one, I'd say it's a fairly big limiting factor.

However, he's already at a level where he doesn't require much improve to be a genuine star. All I'm saying is that less developed players will catch up and at least a few could very possibly overtake him.


Rich doesn't seem to have that weak link and as such can effectively make use of his strengths. His fitness is one area where he can improve in, allowing him to have more impact over 4 quarters but it definitely isn't as pronounced a hindrance as Watts' physical inability to compete at the moment is.


Yes he has improvement left in him. I've get to see a living 18 year old who doesn't. But players have differing levels of improvements and since Rich is an already well rounded player, his improvement compared to others is limited. A sturdy chain with a slightly rusted link or two as its weakest point has less improvement than another sturdy chain being held together by gaffer tape. Rich doesn't have the glaring weaknesses that somebody like Watts does but there's no doubting Watts' ability in other aspects of his game.

Of course there's no guarantee that tape will ever be replaced with a strong link but we'll find out in a year or four.

 

[Grimreepah]

Of course there's no guarantee that tape will ever be replaced with a strong link but we'll find out in a year or four.

So you are saying Watts may or may not improve more than Rich? Well, I agree.

 

[krayfesh]

I love watching people post in circles.

It's like your being difficult for the sake of it.

 

[Grimreepah]

I love watching people post in circles.

It's like your being difficult for the sake of it.

Well it is possible that BF4 and myself were arguing slightly different things because of the ambiguity of the term 'upside'.

The main point I was trying to get across is that Rich having a mature body at a young age doesn't translate into him having a ceiling on how good a player he can become.

 

[krayfesh]

Every player has that ceiling, though.

Rich is a little closer to it then other draftees, hence the upside thingy.

Doesn't do much good in the end though.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Rich averages 17 disposals a game.

Sounds like he has plenty of upside to me.

 

[smiddaz123]

Well it is possible that BF4 and myself were arguing slightly different things because of the ambiguity of the term 'upside'.

The main point I was trying to get across is that Rich having a mature body at a young age doesn't translate into him having a ceiling on how good a player he can become.

It's not just the mature body, but also his mature personality.

His football intelligence, composure and professionalism come off as much better than nearly all the other draftees, who will develop these areas with experience (obviously Rich will too, but I think he is already proficient in these areas and doesn't need to develop them to the extent of others).

He seemed to come into AFL physically and mentally more ready than the other players.

Anyone who suggests Rich doesn't have room to improve, or tries to say he has little room to improve is wrong, because they can't know that. I think it's reasonable to say that it's likely he's closer to his best football than any of the other draftees though.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter though. Rich could've come into the AFL as a skinny immature kid, and developed these attributes slowly. Instead, he's come into the AFL ready to play from the get-go. Everyone would prefer the latter.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

I would consider Gibbs a more complete player at this point, but Carlton supporters have a few based on what they hope for and they see plenty of improvement which may or may not eventuate as he matures.

My observation (right or wrong) is that he lacks the burst speed of an elite midfielder that Judd, Ablett and Cooney possess.

Rich is a terrific impact player, but I doubt he will ever a high possession player. His body type gives him great strength but it is hard to have that much muscle and develop elite endurance. He also appears a little slow and you would expect more acceleration from such a strongly built body type.

I have no doubt Rich will give good service to Brisbane for a long time but my vote is with Gibbs because I believe he is more adaptable to the modern style.

PS
I am happy for the Doggies to have Callan Ward as their developing mid fielder.

 

[CarltonLegends95]

Compare Luke Ball to Daniel Rich

Ball was the hard at it inside midfielder who was one of the best things going round. Now look he has a chronic groin problem and by 25 the game has gone to fast for him. Looking for a new club.

Daniel Rich has no pace now,yeah he had a great first season, because he was more physically mature than the rest of the draftees in their first year, but what will happen in 2-3 years time when the game evolves and gets even faster and he gets more attention because of his good first year. He will be beaten more often because of that lack of pace. Yeah he has a booming kick but what is the use if he is too slow to get the ball in the first place.

Gibbs can play forward back and midfield, he is a superb all round player. Rich is a one dimensional midfielder. Rich can't play back, forward, he can't take out players like Goodes or Cornes like Gibbs did.

Don't compare Gibbs' first year to Rich's one. They are totally different and Gibbs had it harder than rich. He was 17 and less physically mature but had and still does have heaps of upside now, he took a tag because of Carlton struggling midfield at the time, and could not impact that much because of it.
He played back and forward it that time and that helped immensely in his development and was also part of the leadership group.

Rich had Black, Power, Sherman and Johnstone to help take the pressure off him and he had less attention in his debut game than Pick 1 Bryce Gibbs. He had all the help from senior midfielder's and his first game was in a better team than Gibbs. He had one of the best forward combo's in Brown and Bradshaw to kick it to to make him look better.

After 3 years in the system, with the best Carlton team in 8 years in 2009,and shit in the other two of his career, Gibbs is one of the best players in the league highlighted by his great finish in the Brownlow and still at 20 has more to deliver.

Rich on the other hand may be good for the short term but like Ball may be finished by 25 or even earlier.

 

[free at last]

Wouldn't swap Rich for any young mid in the comp.

you wouldn't swap joel selwood for rich.selwood is a young mid,who is streets ahead of any young mid in the afl,period

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter though. Rich could've come into the AFL as a skinny immature kid, and developed these attributes slowly. Instead, he's come into the AFL ready to play from the get-go. Everyone would prefer the latter.

I do not think this is true. I'm not sure why, however.

But, lets examine his draft year.

Let's also apply liberal use of the word 'upside'.

Why was Rich allowed to slip to 7 ?
- I assume, because he would've "come into the AFL ready to play from the get-go". This would suggest a more limited 'upside' to the coaches and talent scouts of the respective clubs. And the scouts thought they knew exactly how much improvement he had left.

Why did Hill go 3, and Rich go 7 ?
- Hill, an aboriginal player, was taken at 3, with all the stigma attached (likewise Yarran at 6).
- Hill, and Rich were both WA boys, so no difference in a supposed "go-home" factor that WA clubs are getting scared about.
- Both players are expected to play through the midfield.
- Rich also had the hype (which I think plays a decent role in getting drafted high) and had been touted as a top 3 pick. So there was some social desirability bias in them not drafting Rich (Where club hierarchy / coaching staff might cover there tails and do what football circles dictate)
- Yes it was Fremantle drafting.

Why did Yarran go 6, and Rich go 7 ?
- 'Upside', and call us stupid, perhaps we deserve it - Time will tell.
- The 'needs-basis'. Which is something clubs suggest doesn't happen in drafts, but it appears we chose a forward with 'scope' to play midfield, as consistent with our needs.
- Still we see ourselves recruiting midfielders (McLean as case-in-point) to rectify issues we have in grunt-work. (Why not simply groom Rich into this role, or groom Gibbs, and let Rich run amok).

I really do believe the clubs, at least some of them, largely factor in this 'upside' term. Perhaps they have a more professional, less 'Schwartz' like term - Scope for Development - or something. But I do believe clubs factor this in.

We know, however, that clubs wouldn't just choose players based on the amount of improvement they could achieve. (Otherwise all clubs would just draft 16 year old Basketballers and Rugby players and say "by golly they've come a long way since they were drafted")

This suggests that these clubs have calculated the risk involved with taking other players over Rich, and the 'Scope for Development' of these other players has far outweighed that risk. More or less, clubs expect Rich to be 'overtaken' either, quite quickly, or quite substantially sometime in the future.

Personally, I cannot see it.

However it must factor in to clubs perceptions of a player/draftee.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Sorry about the essay!

 

[.Shotties.]

*snip*
After 3 years in the system, with the best Carlton team in 8 years in 2009,and shit in the other two of his career, Gibbs is one of the best players in the league highlighted by his great finish in the Brownlow and still at 20 has more to deliver.

Best in the league is pretty ambiguous. What rank would you give him and ahead of who?

Aside from that, I admire your ability to ask that Gibbs not be judged on his first two years before deriding Rich for what he hasn't done in his first.

 

[Grimreepah]

Daniel Rich has no pace now...

Incorrect. Rich ran a faster sprint time at draft camp than Bryce Gibbs.

Rich on the other hand may be good for the short term but like Ball may be finished by 25 or even earlier.

This is one of the lamest attempts to talk Rich down that I've seen yet.

 

[Happy_Neale]

Incorrect. Rich ran a faster sprint time at draft camp than Bryce Gibbs.

Kaboom!

I was just going to say the same thing. Also smiddaz I think it was raised a good point - just because he is closer to his ceiling, doesn't mean he can't go above and beyond another player because of it. His 'ceiling' could be twice as high as Gibbs - how could anyobody know how much he will 'potentially' improve?

Supporters can go on and on about drafting for upside but at the end of the day, nobody can really know how much a player is going to improve. This is why there are so many rookie draftees playing AFL and late draft picks going on to make a name for themselves. No attempt should be made to make a slight on Rich just because he is physically developed.

It is better to take a 10 year solid prospect with a high chance of success than a player who may or may not mature into a gun.

In relation to the Gibbs vs. Rich argument - well I'm going to say Rich but of course there is bias there. But as of right now, I would prefer Rich for Brisbane, as he is a better fit for our team. Plays tough as an inside mid, great tackler and booming left foot kick. He can deliver it to Fev and Brown next season and will be very dangerous off a HFF. Gibbs is a better fit for Carlton, because he is able to play a range of roles that suit his skill set, as Rich is a better fit for Brisbane for the same reason.

 

[Lions4flag]

Daniel Rich has no pace now,yeah he had a great first season, because he was more physically mature than the rest of the draftees in their first year, but what will happen in 2-3 years time when the game evolves and gets even faster and he gets more attention because of his good first year. He will be beaten more often because of that lack of pace.

Simon Black wasnt a fast player and look what kind of a player he turned out to be...

All you carlton supports are sooks.. You guys keep telling yourselfs that Rich has not much more improvement in him to sleep well at night..

I dont think you guys can remember the elimination final... Rich was the guy who literally won us the game of his own boot..

Rich has just goto improve on his consistency because he had to many games that he had 10 or less possessions..

 

[Hollow Knight]

Simon Black wasnt a fast player and look what kind of a player he turned out to be...

All you carlton supports are sooks.. You guys keep telling yourselfs that Rich has not much more improvement in him to sleep well at night..

I dont think you guys can remember the elimination final... Rich was the guy who literally won us the game of his own..

Rich has just goto improve on his consistency because he had to many games that he had 10 or less possessions..

Yup, Rich averaged 18 or so touches a game, but in a couple of games (Freo & Geelong) he got 30+ touches and was BOG (and got 3 Brownlow votes in both games to show for it). All he has to do is play those games more often and he is a superstar.

Upside

 

[blues4flag]

Out of interest, if you were offered at the end of 2005, 2006, 2007 an option between Mitch Clark and Dale Thomas, who would you have taken? If I ask you now, what's your answer?

 

[.Shotties.]

Out of interest, if you were offered at the end of 2005, 2006, 2007 an option between Mitch Clark and Dale Thomas, who would you have taken? If I ask you now, what's your answer?

One's a ruckman, the other is a flanker. Was that a serious question?

 

[Lions4flag]

Out of interest, if you were offered at the end of 2005, 2006, 2007 an option between Mitch Clark and Dale Thomas, who would you have taken? If I ask you now, what's your answer?

Probably Dale Thomas because Clark had yet to prove himself and also he wasnt getting a game then???

But now obviously Mitch Clark

 

[Hollow Knight]

Out of interest, if you were offered at the end of 2005, 2006, 2007 an option between Mitch Clark and Dale Thomas, who would you have taken? If I ask you now, what's your answer?

If I said Mitch Clark would you believe me?

 

[smiddaz123]

It's a dodgy example, both are players that were always hyped over their upside.

Clark vs Murphy is probably more apt.