Reece Conca

[Icanwalk]

What about if Gaff was uncontracted and requested a trade to Victoria? What would be "fair value"?

Fair and what we could get away with considering the circumstances are two very different things. What we received for Ebert was hardly fair, as would what we'd be offered for Gaff if he shared those circumstances. I personally think Conca is worth a mid-late 1st rounder. Would I be content with us making such an offer for his services this trade window, no. Start with the 2nd rounder and work from there. Our 1st should be off the table (barring an extraordinary player surfacing on the market).

 

[Ian Dargie]

Somewhere between pick 11 and pick 29 Richmond-wise.

Gaff+24 for Pick 11+29 wouldn't be too far off the mark in those circumstances.

You reckon? So less than pick 11 on its own?

Not sure many would consider that "fair value".

 

[Ian Dargie]

Fair and what we could get away with considering the circumstances are two very different things.

Sure - but we're addressing the idea of "fair value" right now.

What we received for Ebert was hardly fair

Agreed, and that's become abundantly clear from his performances at Port. But I'd remind you that Ebert wasn't considered best 22 at the end of his last season at WC.

Take a look at his numbers that season. He was dropped for the last two finals.

So we all look back and think that we got fleeced, which is still true. But, at the time, Ebert had played some pretty patchy football and was essentially a highly regarded fringe player. What we got what still unders but he hadn't done enough to command a first-rounder in return. Port had pick #6 that year - they got Wingard. I certainly wouldn't want WC to give up pick #6 this year - or our first-rounder any other year - for a player outside another club's best 22.

An early second-rounder would have been OK and probably "fair value", particularly when you consider that Port obviously rated him. The pick 28 that we got would have been acceptable in a kind of shitty, cut your losses, 'thems the breaks' way if it had been a straight swap for Ebert. But pick 28 and a downgrade in the third round was us getting bent over.

 

[beatlesmith]

You reckon? So less than pick 11 on its own?

Not sure many would consider that "fair value".

Out of contract, looking for a trade home? Yeah, I think so.
It's the middle ground between what the player is probably worth circumstances aside (Wellingham was probably around this mark) and being rorted (as we were with Ebert).
The Judd trade was pretty good example of this- didn't get picks 1+3 as we would have hoped at the time, but didn't get bent over a barrel either.

 

[Masto]

As opposed to you just quoting statistics as though they're definitive?

Priddis averaged more disposals than Cotchin, Fyfe, Jack, Hannebery and Boak.

Does that mean he was better? Would it be 'BigFooty group think' to suggest otherwise?

At least stats are somewhat objective as opposed to 'someone's opinion'. At the end of the day, your opinion that Conca is better than Gaff isn't worth a squirt of cat's piss.

What's Gaff at WC? The fourth or fifth midfielder?

Has Gaff proven himself as a #1 midfielder?

You are saying some weird shit.

I never said he had. But there is no denying that the oppositions #1 midfield target in 2013 was Andrew Gaff. When he was top 10 in the AFL in meters gained in 2012 its not hard to see why.

 

[pantskyle]

You're speaking hypotheticals.

Conca's 2013 was better than Gaff's.

It really wasn't. Conca was non-existent in the first half of the year.

Gaff was solid but not spectacular and learned what is was about dealing with a tag every week. Not to mention how crap we were.

Tigers were up and about and Conca has a very good second half of the season, he was never tagged.

 

[pantskyle]

Lets put it this way, Gaff was a pick 4 and has so far proved that was a good pick.

In value right now he is worth a top 4 pick.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

It really wasn't. Conca was non-existent in the first half of the year.

Gaff was solid but not spectacular and learned what is was about dealing with a tag every week. Not to mention how crap we were.

Tigers were up and about and Conca has a very good second half of the season, he was never tagged.

Gaff was virtually non-existent for the first half of the year. Zero impact.

 

[ThePuma #9]

Gaff was virtually non-existent for the first half of the year. Zero impact.

You're right.

The opposition realized how dangerous his run is and when you give him time to execute, he is a pretty deadly kick.

They put a hard, physical tag on him all year.

To be honest Woosha let him drown a little throughout the year. It drove me nuts that we weren't trying to help him out just a little.

Poor kid was getting the snot beaten out of him most weeks with little to no help from team mates either.

This year was a very harsh learning curve for him.

I don't expect the next coach to let him suffer the way he did this year.

Gaff is only 22 and from the club's site they state his weight at 82kg.

Kid would have been out muscled by at least 10 kilos for most of the year.

Another pre season will help but when one of our boys is being roughed up i would like to see the boys makes a point that they won't cop it and rally around each other.

We've become pretty soft in that area the last few years.

 

[Legendairy]

You're right.

The opposition realized how dangerous his run is and when you give him time to execute, he is a pretty deadly kick.

They put a hard, physical tag on him all year.

To be honest Woosha let him drown a little throughout the year. It drove me nuts that we weren't trying to help him out just a little.

Poor kid was getting the snot beaten out of him most weeks with little to no help from team mates either.

This year was a very harsh learning curve for him.

I don't expect the next coach to let him suffer the way he did this year.

Gaff is only 22 and from the club's site they state his weight at 82kg.

Kid would have been out muscled by at least 10 kilos for most of the year.

Another pre season will help but when one of our boys is being roughed up i would like to see the boys makes a point that they won't cop it and rally around each other.

We've become pretty soft in that area the last few years.

we've always been soft when it comes to that, remember Daniel Kerr?

 

[kranky al]

You're right.

The opposition realized how dangerous his run is and when you give him time to execute, he is a pretty deadly kick.

They put a hard, physical tag on him all year.

To be honest Woosha let him drown a little throughout the year. It drove me nuts that we weren't trying to help him out just a little.

Poor kid was getting the snot beaten out of him most weeks with little to no help from team mates either.

This year was a very harsh learning curve for him.

I don't expect the next coach to let him suffer the way he did this year.

Gaff is only 22 and from the club's site they state his weight at 82kg.

Kid would have been out muscled by at least 10 kilos for most of the year.

Another pre season will help but when one of our boys is being roughed up i would like to see the boys makes a point that they won't cop it and rally around each other.

We've become pretty soft in that area the last few years.

Incredibly soft - not just with helping gaff but with blocking and 1% ears all year

Carlton were doing more to help teammates out last night

 

[ndot]

Conca may have some redeemable attributes, but ball use isn't one of them. The LAST thing we need is another ball butcher in our midfield.

As mediocre as Gaff was this year, he is at least respectable by foot. Comparing him to Conca is outrageous.

 

[pantskyle]

Gaff was virtually non-existent for the first half of the year. Zero impact.

Yes he was tagged out of games and eventually learned to deal with the tags.

That's a positive not a negative.

 

[Butler]

based on what Conca's shown in his career thus far, i'd say he's worth a 4th or 5th round pick...?

hardly worthy of a 17 page thread

Conca may have some redeemable attributes, but ball use isn't one of them. The LAST thing we need is another ball butcher in our midfield.

As mediocre as Gaff was this year, he is at least respectable by foot. Comparing him to Conca is outrageous.

I have got to ask after these two posts.. Are you thinking of the right player? Or have you just hardly seen him play?

 

[swannies]

Agreed, and that's become abundantly clear from his performances at Port. But I'd remind you that Ebert wasn't considered best 22 at the end of his last season at WC.

I'm not sure you can say that. He was evidently told he wouldn't feature in the midfield rotations as heavily, because of kicking deficiencies. That doesn't mean he wasn't best 22. It means he wasn't considered in the best 5-6 midfield rotations.

 

[Icanwalk]

Sure - but we're addressing the idea of "fair value" right now.

I understand that, but my point is why have you dedicated the last few pages of the thread to debating this issue. I daresay that if we were obliged to pay 'fair value' for Conca (which I believe is a mid-late first rounder), then we'd not be chasing his signiture this transfer window. The issue of his worth, provided his circumstances if far more relevant, and should be the primary focus of the Eagles staff (although with their track record, I really shouldn't expect so much from them).

Agreed, and that's become abundantly clear from his performances at Port. But I'd remind you that Ebert wasn't considered best 22 at the end of his last season at WC.

This isn't simply an issue of hindsight, to many here, it was clear that Ebert's stength was his inside ability, and for him to have developed in such a way that we've since witnessed at Port, it was essential that he be played in the position that Priddis and the like so stubbornly occupy. The reason that he wasn't best 22 at the end of his last season at WC was not so much a matter of his ability, but rather the improper management of him as a player (something that has become a forte of the Eagles over the past 5 years).

Take a look at his numbers that season. He was dropped for the last two finals.

Statistics don't always reveal the true nature of a situation. Context.

So we all look back and think that we got fleeced, which is still true. But, at the time, Ebert had played some pretty patchy football and was essentially a highly regarded fringe player. What we got what still unders but he hadn't done enough to command a first-rounder in return. Port had pick #6 that year - they got Wingard. I certainly wouldn't want WC to give up pick #6 this year - or our first-rounder any other year - for a player outside another club's best 22.

I'd argue we gave up a first rounder last year for a player outside a best 22 (albeit a very strong best 22). I would much, much rather have Ebert (of the current variety) in our side. But all this is hypothetical, back to the point, we should not involve our first rounder in negotiations for Conca.

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

Conca may have some redeemable attributes, but ball use isn't one of them. The LAST thing we need is another ball butcher in our midfield.

As mediocre as Gaff was this year, he is at least respectable by foot. Comparing him to Conca is outrageous.

Conca is a very good kick of the footy on both sides of the body don't know where you get 'ball butcher' from he is a much better kick for goal on the run than gaff . Gaff with such good kicking can't seem to get it through the big sticks very often . Don't know why!

 

[Eagle87]

I'm not sure you can say that. He was evidently told he wouldn't feature in the midfield rotations as heavily, because of kicking deficiencies. That doesn't mean he wasn't best 22. It means he wasn't considered in the best 5-6 midfield rotations.

Yes, and it was an appalling under-estimation of his ability and a stupid thing to say to a developing 21 year old. Woosh couldn't see what was pretty bloody obvious to my eyes and that was a big black mark against him then and remains so now, as Ebert shows every weekend that he'd be an absolutely brilliant addition to our midfield ...

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

Ebert still can't kick for shit ! 2 horrible kicks clangers in the last quarter that resulted in Geelong scores . I don't miss that part of his game at all . In his last season he was a liability in the midfield for us with his kicking .

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Ebert still can't kick for shit ! 2 horrible kicks clangers in the last quarter that resulted in Geelong scores . I don't miss that part of his game at all . In his last season he was a liability in the midfield for us with his kicking .

His kicking in the game against Collingwood was superb. It has certainly improved overall.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

His kicking in the game against Collingwood was superb. It has certainly improved overall.

I second this. From what I saw his kicking was actually a feature.

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

His kicking in the game against Collingwood was superb. It has certainly improved overall.

I do agree that it has improved overall and he is a great mid and I wish we still had him but at the time he was dropped for the 2 finals we were big on our kicking disposal and not turning it over . He was a liability and didn't deserve that spot in the midfield . He had to earn it and he didn't ! He got his chance by default at port and has come on in leaps and bounds . Maybe the home environment and support helped but his place in our side and treatment was justified IMO

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Maybe the home environment and support helped but his place in our side and treatment was justified IMO

If he'd been given the chance in our midfield he'd have flourished just as he as now. We backed the wrong horses then (and, incidentally, will continue to) and we'll look pretty silly for years to come.

 

[Spooky17]

If he'd been given the chance in our midfield he'd have flourished just as he as now. We backed the wrong horses then (and, incidentally, will continue to) and we'll look pretty silly for years to come.

Surely you aren't talking about Swiftsa?!?!

 

[Coledinho]

Source, not in papers.

I would be deleting that source from my phone book pretty quickly If I was you