Analysis Does Derek Get a Pass Mark?

[SchuPie]

Hannebery would've been very handy on the 2011 GF day. Had Dekka taken him.

Agree - excellent player and would have been great on GF day 2011...trouble is, selecting him changes every page of history so perhaps we lose other matches and dont make either of the 2010 or 2011 GFs and selecting costs a flag.

 

[MeisterBot]

Hannebery is Daisy with less incisive kicking but a stronger inside game. And by Daisy, I mean 2010 finals Daisy, not the guy sitting at home collecting worker's comp at Carlton these days. Arguably, we didn't need a guy like him structurally in 2010/2011. That said, he would be a very welcome inclusion in the current team. Put him on the opposite wing to Sidebottom and they'd tear teams apart.

Still can't get behind the idea that Hine erred somehow by taking Beams over Hannebery. Both were inspired selections. But TG loves to reel them in and all.

 

[Kappa]

Agree - excellent player and would have been great on GF day 2011...trouble is, selecting him changes every page of history so perhaps we lose other matches and dont make either of the 2010 or 2011 GFs and selecting costs a flag.

When you use logic you really make Thatsgold look the fool. It's not fair.

 

[FIGJAM]

Ya can't have both in this idiotic hypothetical scenario and we sure as shit should be happy with the return from Beams.

In relation to both players, Hannebury is a better 'head over the ball' type traditional rover, but lacks Beams' class in kicking and particularly his elite handball. Whilst Beams is a softer and largely more unaccountable mid, the amount of ball he wins and his cool head means he's been instrumental in many wins.

Both players have very well documented history as being loose blokes off the field (not sure how Hannebury is viewed as a clean skin earlier!), but then they are both train and play hard, so it's not a major issue.

All in all, it's stunning to believe anyone can argue that the Beams selection wasn't justifiable.

 

[Mattwj81]

Derek Hines is a great recruiter, but the thing we need to remember that he is recruiting under a structure. He would be supplied with the needs of the football department and would be recruiting to those needs, so some of his choices will be the best he thinks fits that need at the time.

I think really the strength of a recruiting department gets shown in the rookie draft where they get a bit more freedom to select those diamonds in the rough.

 

[NT.Thunder]

I think more credit needs to be given to the recruiting team as a whole and the footballing department. Hine is the face of recruiting for the club but I'm sure there's a lot of inputs coming in that make it what it is.

 

[Hva sher a]

Ya can't have both in this idiotic hypothetical scenario and we sure as shit should be happy with the return from Beams.

In relation to both players, Hannebury is a better 'head over the ball' type traditional rover, but lacks Beams' class in kicking and particularly his elite handball. Whilst Beams is a softer and largely more unaccountable mid, the amount of ball he wins and his cool head means he's been instrumental in many wins.

Both players have very well documented history as being loose blokes off the field (not sure how Hannebury is viewed as a clean skin earlier!), but then they are both train and play hard, so it's not a major issue.

All in all, it's stunning to believe anyone can argue that the Beams selection wasn't justifiable.

This doesn't apply to you but would be interesting if the commentary on Beams' weaknesses would still be published if he was still a Collingwood player. Removal of the rose-coloured glasses on ex players seems to change the tone of a number of posters

 

[sirlothie]

This doesn't apply to you but would be interesting if the commentary on Beams' weaknesses would still be published if he was still a Collingwood player. Removal of the rose-coloured glasses on ex players seems to change the tone of a number of posters

It's sour grapes, Beams is a outright gun, he's not soft at all. He's an A grader.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Hannebery was the 4th highest possession getter in the AFL averaging 30 in 2015.

Beams was fourth in 2011.

Career wise its 28 Beams 30 Hanneberry. Not much in it but given Beams superior skills I's take his 28 over HAnneberry's 30 every time. Also HAnnebery handballs a lot more while Beams has a higher percentage of kicks. I'd take a kick over a handball every day too.

Beams doesnt tackle as much and his lack of a defensive mindset is well acknowledged. But its a nonsense to say that cost us a flag in 2011 and Hanneberry would have won us a flag because of his extra one tackle per match.

Beams is a gun. He is a premiership player so we cant regret picking him up. And we got massive value for him when we left so we also cant regret him leaving.

 

[MeisterBot]

This doesn't apply to you but would be interesting if the commentary on Beams' weaknesses would still be published if he was still a Collingwood player. Removal of the rose-coloured glasses on ex players seems to change the tone of a number of posters

I believe people like Mike banging on about it during the 2014 season and I disagreed under the erroneous impression that because Beams' defensive application and intensity at the contest was strong, that he wasn't one way. Until I saw it for myself. Once he's out of the contest, he moves remarkably slow on transition.

It wouldn't have been an unspoken opinion, but probably an unpopular one. One of the reasons I'm annoyed with TG's tactics. His constant contrarian postings make it difficult to go against the grain without being called a "troll".

 

[mike123]

I actually mentioned it before he announced his wanted a trade.

Although once he did I kinda went on a rampage about it.

 

[Scodog10]

I actually mentioned it before he announced his wanted a trade.

Although once he did I kinda went on a rampage about it.

I was similarly minded, but reasonably content to accept it the whole way through because of what he provided offensively (I only ever tore into him post round 1 2014). Overall it wasn't a particularly popular opinion to call him out on his "effort" defensively pre-October 2014 that's for sure...

On Beams v Hanners, splitting hairs, IMO. Deciding factor would probably be loyalty for me, but you'd hardly blame Hine for that!!

 

[Hva sher a]

Once he's out of the contest, he moves remarkably slow on transition.

One could say the same thing about Swanny but I'd be excommunicated for that. I adored Swanny and Beams for what they brought to the team but they aren't perfect.

 

[suspect footskills]

Ya can't have both in this idiotic hypothetical scenario and we sure as shit should be happy with the return from Beams.

In relation to both players, Hannebury is a better 'head over the ball' type traditional rover, but lacks Beams' class in kicking and particularly his elite handball. Whilst Beams is a softer and largely more unaccountable mid, the amount of ball he wins and his cool head means he's been instrumental in many wins.

Both players have very well documented history as being loose blokes off the field (not sure how Hannebury is viewed as a clean skin earlier!), but then they are both train and play hard, so it's not a major issue.

All in all, it's stunning to believe anyone can argue that the Beams selection wasn't justifiable.

Beams at 29? not a good pick up? haven't read the whole thread but that's pretty rich. If Hanners wasn't taken just afterwards it'd be a celebrated coup, conversation over.

In any case, Beams was the better fit as grunt wasn't lacking and class is always welcome, the more the merrier. That's a part of Hine's recruiting I appreciate, the way he has built good lists with both Class and grunt.

Having two top ten picks suffer injury and one of them leaving from a draft he rated probably burns as it's his first draft failure, of sorts. Langdon's selection has mitigated the Berg's misfortune however and I have faith that Marsh will find his groove.

Overall the guy has been exceptional and I think the trend will continue.

 

[Copeland]

Well said popin. Whilst I wish all our selections well another draft goes by without an Indigenous player selected. We must have the lowest representation in the AFL and IMO it is not good enough.

Do you think the team with the highest representation in the AFL will be saying shit, we to start selecting less. Someone has to have the least, pick the best available and forget the skin color.

 

[FIGJAM]

This doesn't apply to you but would be interesting if the commentary on Beams' weaknesses would still be published if he was still a Collingwood player. Removal of the rose-coloured glasses on ex players seems to change the tone of a number of posters

I'm happy running through every player's strengths and weaknesses who are currently on our list if you like.

If have said it when Beams was on our list. No point not calling a spade a spade!

 

[Hva sher a]

I'm happy running through every player's strengths and weaknesses who are currently on our list if you like.

If have said it when Beams was on our list. No point not calling a spade a spade!

My comments weren't directed at you specifically. It was more an observation of the general tone of the board. For instance, during trade negotiations for Beams, there was much proclamation about him being an elite AA level mid (which is true) but less about his defensive weaknesses - but his weaknesses are mentioned more now that he's no longer with us.
The rose-coloured mentality isn't necessarily a crime (I do it) but as I said, it's a curious observation.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

My comments weren't directed at you specifically. It was more an observation of the general tone of the board. For instance, during trade negotiations for Beams, there was much proclamation about him being an elite AA level mid (which is true) but less about his defensive weaknesses - but his weaknesses are mentioned more now that he's no longer with us.
The rose-coloured mentality isn't necessarily a crime (I do it) but as I said, it's a curious observation.

Same with Daisy

 

[Hva sher a]

Same with Daisy

correct - with Daisy there was the added sense of betrayal because he (a) went to Carlton and (b) went to play for an ex coach we rejected.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Derek Hines is a great recruiter, but the thing we need to remember that he is recruiting under a structure. He would be supplied with the needs of the football department and would be recruiting to those needs, so some of his choices will be the best he thinks fits that need at the time.

I think really the strength of a recruiting department gets shown in the rookie draft where they get a bit more freedom to select those diamonds in the rough.

Now now, you're making great sense, that won't do. Confuses people.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I think more credit needs to be given to the recruiting team as a whole and the footballing department. Hine is the face of recruiting for the club but I'm sure there's a lot of inputs coming in that make it what it is.

Yes great people doing top line work of which Derek is head man.
One thing I really like withDerek he has a habit of calling people by their first names not nick names or Blokey names.

Eg: dale was selected because.... Not Daisey
Eg: Nathan will be a full back... Not Browny will be

Just an aside

 

[Saintly Viewed]

correct - with Daisy there was the added sense of betrayal because he (a) went to Carlton and (b) went to play for an ex coach we rejected.

I was t too fussed in Dale leaving when he did, like him yes, but with his injuries I was "good luck to him" but his best is behind him. Daisey and Mick together again, was very sweet

 

[loki04]

Pass mark for 2012?

or Now?

If now how do we know until they hit at a minimum completed 3 years (even then some could surprise ie Swan took him 4 completed seasons to show what he became).

He definitely nailed the trade period and Seir looks a good smoky for the pick range, some say over reached but I get the feeling he was a diamond in the rough type pick which in this day and age is very rare thing indeed.

 

[tassiemaniac]

Pass mark for 2012?

or Now?

If now how do we know until they hit at a minimum completed 3 years (even then some could surprise ie Swan took him 4 completed seasons to show what he became).

He definitely nailed the trade period and Seir looks a good smoky for the pick range, some say over reached but I get the feeling he was a diamond in the rough type pick which in this day and age is very rare thing indeed.

You may well be right but I'm curious what the club hierarchy are up to in terms of long term management of the teams key positions - if you look at the last five drafts for example the only players we have taken in the draft that could be considered key position forwards are: 2011 Jackson Paine and Corey Gault 2014 Darcy Moore. In terms of Key Position Defenders maybe Jono Marsh but he's really a third tall type in my view. Other than Witts and Grundy in the ruck everyone else taken with our first four picks has been small to medium sized. So if Derek Hine is picking needs based and it takes three to four years to develop a player to their potential, what is the thinking in relation to the spine of the team from 2017 and beyond? The defense and ruck look good for a few more years but the forward line's future looks to be Moore and?? Me thinks there is possibly some big conversations going on to land a star in either 2017 or 2018 and given how the AFL "works" may already be lined up.

 

[mike123]

I think we backing Cloke to stay around for a few more years.