Welcome Darcy Fogarty, AFC Pick 12 in the 2017 draft!

How many AFL matches do you think Darcy Fogarty will play in 2018?

  • 16+ games

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It depends on form, injuries blah blah why even bother posting about the season or footy in general

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    78
  • Poll closed .

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Posts
26,334
Likes
13,663
Location
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
There is no right option because you don't know selecting player B will be better. You are guessing they will be and taking a risk that may work and may not.

Which is why I said there must be a balance between development and selecting a team to win. If a senior player is outperforming a guy with lots of potential (as in, not a borderline case) then it doesn't make sense to choose the guy with potential because you are jeopardizing your chance of winning. And you need to win H&A matches to be there in September.

Of course in a borderline case, like Mackay vs Jones or Fogarty v Otten then yeah, you'd choose the player with potential. But that doesn't seem to be what people are suggesting here, with calls to not retain Lynch for example.
I don't think we're actually that far apart really. It's a question of fact (or predicted fact), and degree in each instance.

As it relates to senior players- there are some who's current performance doesnt require growth to remain plainly selectable- your A+ players are always to be selected. Where it becomes more complicated is when you're dealing with your senior B graders, or your C+ers. In my view those players have to be both clearly better now, and likely to remain clearly better with development invested, to be selected above youth.

In some parts the disagreement is whether players are B's or C+s etc I'm sure.

Whether I would have retained Lynch (as opposed to selecting him now that he is retained) is perhaps more complicated. I think you've got to factor in the cap space and opportunity cost as well on the retention issue.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Posts
26,334
Likes
13,663
Location
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
You were isolating winning the next match against winning in September. If we don't win the matches, we don't play in September.
Fog will play games this year. How many is the question. He will have to perform well in games this year to replace any of our existing forward line in September action.
Sure. Also, playing in September isnt as meaningful if you can't win then. I think a 30 plus game Fog could impact in finals. I'm concerned that I know, because we've seen this movie before, that some of our seniors can not.
 

Sanders

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Posts
25,194
Likes
32,267
AFL Club
Adelaide
dignify, not justify


i will write a poem:

Go Fog! is a palindrome
yet he is Mel Gibson
in the thunderdome
he stalks the land, defeating Mothra
Redgum knows his age
he cannot be defeated
he will be like Tex not Modra
all shall know his rage
soon his efforts will be repeated

Turning and turning in the set-shot run-up for goal,
The player cannot hear the runner;
Defences fall apart; the ruckman cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the field,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of Brownlow medal awarding is dumbed down;
The best follow the Crows, while the worst
Are full of platitudes about Port Power
Man, you need a hobby. Too much time on your hands
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Posts
113
Likes
119
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
76ers
Talking about with a mate today, still remember the day we drafted him and we were both shocked st.kilda didn’t take him with either of their top 10 picks. Going into the draft we both thought he was no chance sliding to us. Also thought Carlton would take him at 10
 

John Who

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Posts
4,726
Likes
3,210
AFL Club
Adelaide
Sure. Also, playing in September isnt as meaningful if you can't win then. I think a 30 plus game Fog could impact in finals. I'm concerned that I know, because we've seen this movie before, that some of our seniors can not.
It’s a balancing act in getting enough wins on the board AND getting cherry ripe in the major rounds with your best performing players by the latter part of the year.

Your pro-Fog commentary that’s been rampant in this whole thread is the BIG assumption Fog is a sure thing to be a consistent player by season’s end.

It is not a sure thing. The main argument being his tank is in question.
 

Golumless

I'm kind of a big deal on the east side
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Posts
22,247
Likes
24,693
Location
Wherever the ESH clubrooms are
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Newcastle, Colorado Rockies.
It’s a balancing act in getting enough wins on the board AND getting cherry ripe in the major rounds with your best performing players by the latter part of the year.

Your pro-Fog commentary that’s been rampant in this whole thread is the BIG assumption Fog is a sure thing to be a consistent player by season’s end.

It is not a sure thing. The main argument being his tank is in question.
There is also a balancing act between developing players, and prioritising older heads, something which doubles up in positions which you can sacrifice without any real drama whatsoever (i.e. small forward, mid defenders, third talls, loose defenders etc). Football is not, has never been, and won't be a sport where you need 22 consistent performers, and it'll remain that way until the day we say **** it and abolish the salary cap. Equally a balancing act between what your spending cap space wise with what your getting output wise, especially in those positions listed as most of them are low value to begin with, meaning you don't want a lot of cap space tied up in any of them.

He'd be much closer to that consistent player as that is a year to build chemistry with others, learn a relatively easy role, get more experience playing at this level and learning coping mechanisms to surviving a season. Mind you Fogarty being consistent by the years end is pretty irrelevant, as had we gone that path, it really didn't matter if he did or didn't. What mattered there is we were much closer to a break out year from a talent who we are planning to build our squad around once Tex and co are done. It's a third tall after all, you can live with aggressively fluctuating performance without doing any damage to your premiership window providing he was being a target when required.
 

70lethal

All Australian
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Posts
613
Likes
759
AFL Club
Adelaide
There is also a balancing act between developing players, and prioritising older heads, something which doubles up in positions which you can sacrifice without any real drama whatsoever (i.e. small forward, mid defenders, third talls, loose defenders etc). Football is not, has never been, and won't be a sport where you need 22 consistent performers, and it'll remain that way until the day we say **** it and abolish the salary cap. Equally a balancing act between what your spending cap space wise with what your getting output wise, especially in those positions listed as most of them are low value to begin with, meaning you don't want a lot of cap space tied up in any of them.

He'd be much closer to that consistent player as that is a year to build chemistry with others, learn a relatively easy role, get more experience playing at this level and learning coping mechanisms to surviving a season. Mind you Fogarty being consistent by the years end is pretty irrelevant, as had we gone that path, it really didn't matter if he did or didn't. What mattered there is we were much closer to a break out year from a talent who we are planning to build our squad around once Tex and co are done. It's a third tall after all, you can live with aggressively fluctuating performance without doing any damage to your premiership window providing he was being a target when required.
One players performance shouldnt have much of an effect if the whole unit is performing well.
Robert Murphy missing vs Shane Biggs in the side
Nic Nat vs Vardy or Lycett
Gaff vs Venables
 

Thetrader15

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Posts
9,879
Likes
10,385
AFL Club
Adelaide
I actually thought his running style is was noticeably non fluid on the weekend.

Very upright body, low knee's and with a strangely short stride for a guy that's 194cm. The kind of running style that is more commonly seen in guys suffering dad-bod and playing forward pocket in the C grade of your local club!
HBF thanks! Forward pocket was always for the 40+ coach who played defense his whole life and wanted a chance to kick a few goals
 

mistylake

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Posts
8,258
Likes
7,346
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Canadiens, Maroons.
It has plenty to do with it. Selection is a comparative process.

The present quality of a player, and their capacity to improve on that quality, are plainly relevant criterion.
We do want to win primarily though. Fog is essentially our future not our present unless it makes sense to play him.
 

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Posts
26,334
Likes
13,663
Location
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
Certainty is not in itself a virtue. Certainty of what is the question.

We can be certain that some senior players will not stand up in the heat of september having seen it. Uncertainty about youth, but with the prospect that they will, is ultimately a better option in many circumstances.

Mick Malthouse always took that position.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

John Who

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Posts
4,726
Likes
3,210
AFL Club
Adelaide
There is also a balancing act between developing players, and prioritising older heads, something which doubles up in positions which you can sacrifice without any real drama whatsoever (i.e. small forward, mid defenders, third talls, loose defenders etc). Football is not, has never been, and won't be a sport where you need 22 consistent performers, and it'll remain that way until the day we say **** it and abolish the salary cap. Equally a balancing act between what your spending cap space wise with what your getting output wise, especially in those positions listed as most of them are low value to begin with, meaning you don't want a lot of cap space tied up in any of them.

He'd be much closer to that consistent player as that is a year to build chemistry with others, learn a relatively easy role, get more experience playing at this level and learning coping mechanisms to surviving a season. Mind you Fogarty being consistent by the years end is pretty irrelevant, as had we gone that path, it really didn't matter if he did or didn't. What mattered there is we were much closer to a break out year from a talent who we are planning to build our squad around once Tex and co are done. It's a third tall after all, you can live with aggressively fluctuating performance without doing any damage to your premiership window providing he was being a target when required.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Fog isn't part of our future planning. That is, we all can recognise he will be a beast player some time in the not too distant future a la Doedee, Milera. Though, we musn't forget that we're currently prime as a team to have an all out assault at a premiership tilt this year, and this should be our primary focus.

Blooding the Fog for a full season AFL campaign would be obviously in his best interest, but would it be to the detriment of the team if we play him for all 22 AFL games? Bearing in mind that the Dude and Milera have kicked some butt last year, but both in their third seasons. Fog is into his second season, and looking still a season away from shedding those fatty layers around those huge thighs of his!

I think a compromise would be a reasonable call for Fog - playing him somewhere between 10-12 games this season. If he can show drastic improvements by the season's end, then we keep playing him for the Finals, should we make it that far.
 

Betts are off

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
3,361
Likes
5,151
AFL Club
Adelaide
I don't think anyone is arguing that Fog isn't part of our future planning. That is, we all can recognise he will be a beast player some time in the not too distant future a la Doedee, Milera. Though, we musn't forget that we're currently prime as a team to have an all out assault at a premiership tilt this year, and this should be our primary focus.

Blooding the Fog for a full season AFL campaign would be obviously in his best interest, but would it be to the detriment of the team if we play him for all 22 AFL games? Bearing in mind that the Dude and Milera have kicked some butt last year, but both in their third seasons. Fog is into his second season, and looking still a season away from shedding those fatty layers around those huge thighs of his!

I think a compromise would be a reasonable call for Fog - playing him somewhere between 10-12 games this season. If he can show drastic improvements by the season's end, then we keep playing him for the Finals, should we make it that far.
All good points, and also, lets not forget that we are widely regarded as one of the best talent development teams in the league. People are acting like if FOG plays in the SANFL while he learns his role and gets up to speed physically we are essentially handing out a career death sentence!

Not the case at all. We have shown with remarkable consistency our ability to develop players and improve flaws in young kids over the years, so I just don't understand why people are so frightened to let us develop this kid at the pace he needs to be developed.

With that in mind, I think 10-12 game again during the regular season would be spot on for FOG, preferably with a good block of games coming into finals. But only when he's earned those games, i'm not one for gifting kids games because they have potential or are just fun to watch. They still need to help us win each week!
 

Golumless

I'm kind of a big deal on the east side
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Posts
22,247
Likes
24,693
Location
Wherever the ESH clubrooms are
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Newcastle, Colorado Rockies.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Fog isn't part of our future planning. That is, we all can recognise he will be a beast player some time in the not too distant future a la Doedee, Milera. Though, we musn't forget that we're currently prime as a team to have an all out assault at a premiership tilt this year, and this should be our primary focus.

Blooding the Fog for a full season AFL campaign would be obviously in his best interest, but would it be to the detriment of the team if we play him for all 22 AFL games? Bearing in mind that the Dude and Milera have kicked some butt last year, but both in their third seasons. Fog is into his second season, and looking still a season away from shedding those fatty layers around those huge thighs of his!

I think a compromise would be a reasonable call for Fog - playing him somewhere between 10-12 games this season. If he can show drastic improvements by the season's end, then we keep playing him for the Finals, should we make it that far.
Right now it is a massive detriment to play Fogarty in our side just because no position exists for him, and to fit him in, we'd need to go for a much worse structure. Letting Lynch walk as an OOC player, and it isn't because whilst you lose some production in a 1 on 1 sense, others will inevitably pick up that slack (will take a small amount of structural readjustment, but if you can make the Dangerfield loss relatively negligible*, you can make this "loss" just something that exists on paper alone) and you're also pumping games into a soon to be key asset. That switch does no harm to a premiership assault simply because you aren't impacting anything that is important for it.

Milera had games pumped into him from the get go, in that he's already close to the 50 game mark. Doedee as much as he is a talent, lucked out with a very easy role to fill your boots to start off with seeing he took the Lever role of playing loose for a good while. That said, we did get quite lucky with how much Doedee has come on though seeing some of those intangibles that have the potential to make a player a star really began to surface, but it's not something I'd plan around being a reliable method unless it's optimal conditions to start with.

The only way Fog gets 10-12 games this year is through injury. We are completely reliant on injuries to develop someone who is the best prospect in our club currently for the next 2-3 years, unless we want to cop 600k of salary cap in the reserves. That is a massive **** up in any, and every way a list management decision can be a massive **** up.


*To stress, that loss was still there, but we did a lot of good in mitigating it.
 
Last edited:

GreyCrow

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Posts
43,134
Likes
61,718
Location
Down South Corvus Tristis
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt, Redskins , White Sox
For all those Tom Lynch Haters our there, I suppose tonight was a good night for you.

Only 22 touches, 6 marks, 1 goal assist and no goals as a forward. What a waste of money right?

May as well have not played him
This is about your stupidest post

All the above does is bring about stupid ''see I told you 8 kicks 3 handballs zomg trade him '' posts

Nobody (mostly) hates Lynch

It was an exercise in value costing.

Lynch has value to the side. It was his value to the club most discussed
 

Golumless

I'm kind of a big deal on the east side
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Posts
22,247
Likes
24,693
Location
Wherever the ESH clubrooms are
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Newcastle, Colorado Rockies.
This is about your stupidest post

All the above does is bring about stupid ''see I told you 8 kicks 3 handballs zomg trade him '' posts

Nobody (mostly) hates Lynch

It was an exercise in value costing.

Lynch has value to the side. It was his value to the club most discussed
Not only that, seeing there is also that value compared with that we've completely blocked out our best prospect from a tall forward position.
 

Betts are off

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
3,361
Likes
5,151
AFL Club
Adelaide
This is about your stupidest post

All the above does is bring about stupid ''see I told you 8 kicks 3 handballs zomg trade him '' posts

Nobody (mostly) hates Lynch

It was an exercise in value costing.

Lynch has value to the side. It was his value to the club most discussed
What the hell are you talking about? His value to the club is top bloody shelf! He’s in the player picked leadership group, and is the poster child for our training regime catch cry of ‘Elite Standards’. In terms of dollars hes getting paid his value but certainly not exorbitantly, (and probably 200k less then what he would have gotten in FA). Which is pretty damn valuable to the club considering he is Elite in his role for the team... And if you believe (like certain posters have tried to claim), that Lynch is the one holding FOG out, well, then you really have no understanding of either of them as players!

The only thing we can really say that’s negative about his value in this club is the fact that he’s a bloodnut!

But most people have forgiven him for that...
 
Last edited:

John Who

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Posts
4,726
Likes
3,210
AFL Club
Adelaide
Right now it is a massive detriment to play Fogarty in our side just because no position exists for him, and to fit him in, we'd need to go for a much worse structure. Letting Lynch walk as an OOC player, and it isn't because whilst you lose some production in a 1 on 1 sense, others will inevitably pick up that slack (will take a small amount of structural readjustment, but if you can make the Dangerfield loss relatively negligible*, you can make this "loss" just something that exists on paper alone) and you're also pumping games into a soon to be key asset. That switch does no harm to a premiership assault simply because you aren't impacting anything that is important for it.

Milera had games pumped into him from the get go, in that he's already close to the 50 game mark. Doedee as much as he is a talent, lucked out with a very easy role to fill your boots to start off with seeing he took the Lever role of playing loose for a good while. That said, we did get quite lucky with how much Doedee has come on though seeing some of those intangibles that have the potential to make a player a star really began to surface, but it's not something I'd plan around being a reliable method unless it's optimal conditions to start with.

The only way Fog gets 10-12 games this year is through injury. We are completely reliant on injuries to develop someone who is the best prospect in our club currently for the next 2-3 years, unless we want to cop 600k of salary cap in the reserves. That is a massive **** up in any, and every way a list management decision can be a massive **** up.


*To stress, that loss was still there, but we did a lot of good in mitigating it.
I do get where you’re coming from. I think though you have made one big assumption ie. “the loss of Lynch can be covered by others picking up the slack.”

If we’re that good and can cover easily one of our most consistent and best players, then surely we can cover the slack of picking Fog while still playing Lynch?
 

Golumless

I'm kind of a big deal on the east side
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Posts
22,247
Likes
24,693
Location
Wherever the ESH clubrooms are
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Newcastle, Colorado Rockies.
I do get where you’re coming from. I think though you have made one big assumption ie. “the loss of Lynch can be covered by others picking up the slack.”

If we’re that good and can cover easily one of our most consistent and best players, then surely we can cover the slack of picking Fog while still playing Lynch?
Structures are the single most important facet in this game for premiership success and this completely inhibits any selection of both Lynch and Fogarty without Tex being injured. It's primarily a too tall structure and when you go to tall, you sacrifice defensive pressure which is a ridiculously important component of this game as it is what allows a team to control a game. Sacrifice enough defensive pressure and you've pissed away any hope of success.

This comes to the big problem here. McGovern. With him you can get away with using Lynch in the band aid role he has been in because Gov is just capable enough to keep our heads above water pressure wise. Gov however is a fluke of a player and is completely irreplaceable in our 2017/2018 set up. When we tried, it ended up failing horribly to the point we were only winning games where we were really outclassing our opponents. We have enough of a sample size to know it can't be done and hence why we've opted for three talls, not four so far in our JLT games.

Player output pales in comparison to how you set up. All sides can cover a loss in output from the vast majority of players with relatively ease (with a certain 2018 premier being a prime example) if you are set up well. The minority of that being players who are the cog that makes a structure work, i.e. McGovern for us, potentially Mitchell for Hawks etc. You cannot cover the loss caused from a poor set up no matter how much quality players you have on your list (GWS is a prime example).
 
Top Bottom