You may be right Ace, but you got to have hope. If you aint got that you got nothing.Very well put together post Windhover
I do feel some posters in this thread are perhaps equating depth with potential. These are not the same thing.
Analysis The D Word
- Thread starter thylacine60
- Start date
- Tagged users None
AceAndy
Hall of Famer
- Jun 18, 2013
- 31,711
- 35,488
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Newcastle United, Dragons FFC
I am hoping our potential will translate to depth and beyond. Looking at the players in the potential category I am quietly confident.
Perfectly put!
Best 22 available each week now has to be picked on form regardless of age or reputation with adjustments only for team balance.
The best way to fast track a winning culture is to make the whole list compete for a best 22 spot. If you win a start in round 1, you had better perform or your round 2 spot maybe taken by any player who performed in the two's.
No more players who lost hope and were waiting on the big D like Gorringe and Jaksch who didn't seem invested.
- Nov 22, 2015
- 3,668
- 6,325
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Windhover sorry to say I disagree with some of your assessments.Very useful post.
The way I would analyse our depth this year compared with last year is somewhat different. For a player to be described as being a "depth" player they must have proved that they can play at AFL level this year. The purpose of using this definition is that if a player is considered to be a depth player then if they are selected to play in the 22 you will not be thinking "Oh no, we are going to get next to nothing from this player and/or have to hide/protect them".
If you don't use this definition and treat all players on an AFL list as being "depth" players then "depth" is either a reference to the number of players on the list (which is pointless) or just a subjective assessment of what a poster thinks a completely unknown player will be able to do this year. And the worst aspect of the subjective assessment is that it assumes players coming in are better than players going out just because "selectors". So every year, what do you know, because "selectors", every team's depth is improved every year. Which is obviously tosh.
So, applying my definition to our list:
1. The loss of Gibbs for LOB and 2 future picks is minus 1 player.
2. Dow for BB is a minus 1/2 player (Dow has obviously not proved he can play at the level. BB, certainly in his last 3 games showed something, even if I am not unhappy he was delisted because I see it as a sign of faith in Fisher and Cuningham.
3. Last year posters would have rated Smedts (also a first round draft pick btw so he must have been good) in the same way you now rate Lang. With Lang's inconsistency at the Cats he is as unproven coming to us. Smedts proved he couldn't play. Hoping for better from Lang (as we all do) does NOT mean anything.
4. Jaksch - TDK - unproven. Will not play for us this year (I hope) unless we have horrific injuries - no depth this year.
5. Buckley - Schumacher - ditto, certainly no added depth. Arguably minus 1/2 a player.
6. Sumner - Garlett - I agree it looks good (but peoples were just as excited about Sumner when he came), unproven.
7.Gorridge/Korcheck - Lobbe - does add to depth in that, based on past performances I would expect him to give more value this year than I would have expected (rightly) from G/K last year, though I had pretty high hopes for Korcheck initially. Just shows how misleading it is to be guided by "hoping".
8. Armfield - Mullett - I do not agree this is an upgrade. When comparing "depth" this year to last year you have to look at what Army could do last year against what we might expect Mullett to do this year. Mullett was delisted by a team that finished below us. I know he played 18 games but the fact that he was delisted at the peak age of 25 suggests North did not see him as even adding depth to their side. Again, hoping is no substitution for proven capacity.
9.White - O'Shea - Delisting White was a positive because he proved he couldn't play at the level. O'Shea has not proven he can't play at the level (though he did "prove" it when he was delisted by Port) but he does not become a "depth" player until he actually proves he CAN play at AFL level.
10. Sheehan/McDaid - because Sheehan was so injured he never proved he could play, but McDaid is not a "depth" player yet and indeed I would not expect him to get a game this year.
11. Galluci/Shaw - again, neither is a proven AFL player. What relevance Shaw being taken at 17 might have given he was more recently assessed as worth pick 3 in the 2017 rookie draft I do not know.
The conclusion drawn from above (even ignoring the injured Doc) is that we have LESS depth in 2018 than we had in 2017, not more.
This conclusion should neither surprise nor upset. It is the result of a massive rejuvenation of the list over the last 3 years. I have been delighted by our list changes every year and reckon we now only have 1 proven dud on the list - Daisy. Unlike previous recent years there is no reason to pick duds with an array of exciting, but unproven, talent on the list. Take the consensus 22 for 2017:
Consensus 2017 Lineup
FB: Ciaran Byrne (83) - Caleb Marchbank (93) - Lachie Plowman (101)
HB: Sam Docherty (108) - Jacob Weitering (106) - Kade Simpson (101)
C: Marc Murphy (119) - Ed Curnow (102) - Sam Petrevski-Seton (60)
HF: Charlie Curnow (107) - Harry McKay (93) - Jack Silvagni (117)
FF: Liam Sumner (69) - Levi Casboult (73) - Matthew Wright (80)
R: Matthew Kreuzer (83) - Bryce Gibbs (120) - Patrick Cripps (120)
I: Sam Rowe (38) - Rhys Palmer (26) - Jarrod Pickett (65) - David Cuningham (49)
Emg: Sam Kerridge (34) - Dennis Armfield (32) - Andrew Phillips (31)
and compare it with 2018:
Consensus 2018 Lineup
FB: Ciaran Byrne (98) - Liam Jones (156) - Lachie Plowman (161)
HB: Caleb Marchbank (164) - Jacob Weitering (156) - Kade Simpson (150)
C: Sam Petrevski-Seton (175) - Ed Curnow (157) - Marc Murphy (175)
HF: Charlie Curnow (150) - Levi Casboult (108) - Jarrod Pickett (143)
FF: Matthew Wright (119) - Harry McKay (101) - Jack Silvagni (135)
R: Matthew Kreuzer (181) - Patrick Cripps (183) - Matthew Kennedy (177)
I: Tom Williamson (76) - David Cuningham (67) - Zac Fisher (64) - Paddy Dow (67)
EMG: Darcy Lang (66) - Jarrod Garlett (39) - Aaron Mullett (19)
IMO proven AFL players in 2017 were Plowman, Doc, Weitering, Simmo, Murph, Ed, Caz, Wright, Kreuzer (just), Gibbs, Cripps and Rowe (12 in total).
There was plenty to like about Marchbank, Byrne, SPS, Charlie, Pickett, SOJ, McKay and Cuningham (8) but except for Marchy and Byrne not so much in 2017.
Sumner and more so Palmer had had the time but failed to prove they could play at the level.
Proven AFL players in 2018 are Plowman, Jones, Weitering, Marchbank, Simmo, Murph, Ed, SPS, Charlie, Caz, Wright, Kreuzer (AA competitive), Cripps, Kennedy and Williamson (15 in total).
There is still plenty to like in Byrne, Pickett, SOJ, McKay and Cuningham though I would not regard any of them as yet "proven" at the level. And they should each improve on last year. Particularly Harry. He was mysteriously voted our most important forward in a poll last preseason. I voted for Kreuzer (who I regarded then as inferior to Phillips! - but hey, nor did I think the Beast could play). If we have such a poll this year I will give Harry my vote. As a 3rd year tall it is time he stood up and his attitude, athleticism and raw ability have me whetting my lips in hope of a 25game season and at least expecting good signs.
And Dow and Fisher (who I would almost put into the "proven" category) are much more exciting than Sumner and Palmer were this time last year.
And then I can't understand how Garlett didn't get into the consensus side.
And then there is Macreadie and Polson (considered good enough to get a game in his first season before injury) and LOB.
Conclusion (TLDR)
I do not regard our list to have greater "depth" since chucking experienced players like BB, Buckley, Palmer, Sumner and Smedts for relative newbies will shallow the revealed strength of a list.
I do regard our list to have significantly greater "potential" this year than it had last year with many of our potential players getting closer to become revelations AND with the list maturing in the midfield and forward and not just down back.
1. We lost Gibbs and Pick 40 for Kennedy, LO’B, TDK, and two other second rounders in 2019. Some other Pick swaps and gave up 2019 third rounder. Perhaps short term pain - a year or less - but it’s all gain after that.
2. Dow for B.B. is a win, even if Dow plays the same number of games in 2018 that B.B. played in 2017, Dow goes in harder for the ball and one can see he is a better player. Plus.
3. Lang for Smedts is a win. Lang has pace and hardness, and performed well in one of the Cats’ finals. Plus.
4. Jaksch did not fire a shot and TDK has some development. Think TDK will fire some shots, maybe not 2018. Nevertheless a strategic move by SOS.
5. Schumacher is a better chance of making it than Buckley. Buckley suffered from both fumbles and poor decision-making. Fell of my chair GWS took him as a rookie. Schumacher has time to develop, will inherit Simpson’s spot.
6. Garlett for Sumner. Win.
7. Lobbe for Gorringe and Korcheck. Win (as you say).
8. On Armfield’s output in 2017, Mullett is an upgrade. (LO’B may be the even bigger upgrade.)
9. O’Shea for White. Evens.
10. Sheehan / McDaid. Coming off a low base, Evens.
11. Gallucci / Shaw. Win.
TLDR
We replaced 10 of the bottom 12 or so players on the list with better or developing players. That improves our depth.
Losing Gibbs has short term pain, but Kennedy and others will go some way to filling the hole.
SOS is brilliant. Chucking experienced players like BB, Buckley, Palmer, Sumner and Smedts - and I would add each was a poor player in Navy Blue - for relative newbies with promise and our better development will pay off absolutely.
Last edited:
Very useful post.
The way I would analyse our depth this year compared with last year is somewhat different. For a player to be described as being a "depth" player they must have proved that they can play at AFL level this year. The purpose of using this definition is that if a player is considered to be a depth player then if they are selected to play in the 22 you will not be thinking "Oh no, we are going to get next to nothing from this player and/or have to hide/protect them".
If you don't use this definition and treat all players on an AFL list as being "depth" players then "depth" is either a reference to the number of players on the list (which is pointless) or just a subjective assessment of what a poster thinks a completely unknown player will be able to do this year. And the worst aspect of the subjective assessment is that it assumes players coming in are better than players going out just because "selectors". So every year, what do you know, because "selectors", every team's depth is improved every year. Which is obviously tosh.
So, applying my definition to our list:
1. The loss of Gibbs for LOB and 2 future picks is minus 1 player.
2. Dow for BB is a minus 1/2 player (Dow has obviously not proved he can play at the level. BB, certainly in his last 3 games showed something, even if I am not unhappy he was delisted because I see it as a sign of faith in Fisher and Cuningham.
3. Last year posters would have rated Smedts (also a first round draft pick btw so he must have been good) in the same way you now rate Lang. With Lang's inconsistency at the Cats he is as unproven coming to us. Smedts proved he couldn't play. Hoping for better from Lang (as we all do) does NOT mean anything.
4. Jaksch - TDK - unproven. Will not play for us this year (I hope) unless we have horrific injuries - no depth this year.
5. Buckley - Schumacher - ditto, certainly no added depth. Arguably minus 1/2 a player.
6. Sumner - Garlett - I agree it looks good (but peoples were just as excited about Sumner when he came), unproven.
7.Gorridge/Korcheck - Lobbe - does add to depth in that, based on past performances I would expect him to give more value this year than I would have expected (rightly) from G/K last year, though I had pretty high hopes for Korcheck initially. Just shows how misleading it is to be guided by "hoping".
8. Armfield - Mullett - I do not agree this is an upgrade. When comparing "depth" this year to last year you have to look at what Army could do last year against what we might expect Mullett to do this year. Mullett was delisted by a team that finished below us. I know he played 18 games but the fact that he was delisted at the peak age of 25 suggests North did not see him as even adding depth to their side. Again, hoping is no substitution for proven capacity.
9.White - O'Shea - Delisting White was a positive because he proved he couldn't play at the level. O'Shea has not proven he can't play at the level (though he did "prove" it when he was delisted by Port) but he does not become a "depth" player until he actually proves he CAN play at AFL level.
10. Sheehan/McDaid - because Sheehan was so injured he never proved he could play, but McDaid is not a "depth" player yet and indeed I would not expect him to get a game this year.
11. Galluci/Shaw - again, neither is a proven AFL player. What relevance Shaw being taken at 17 might have given he was more recently assessed as worth pick 3 in the 2017 rookie draft I do not know.
The conclusion drawn from above (even ignoring the injured Doc) is that we have LESS depth in 2018 than we had in 2017, not more.
This conclusion should neither surprise nor upset. It is the result of a massive rejuvenation of the list over the last 3 years. I have been delighted by our list changes every year and reckon we now only have 1 proven dud on the list - Daisy. Unlike previous recent years there is no reason to pick duds with an array of exciting, but unproven, talent on the list. Take the consensus 22 for 2017:
Consensus 2017 Lineup
FB: Ciaran Byrne (83) - Caleb Marchbank (93) - Lachie Plowman (101)
HB: Sam Docherty (108) - Jacob Weitering (106) - Kade Simpson (101)
C: Marc Murphy (119) - Ed Curnow (102) - Sam Petrevski-Seton (60)
HF: Charlie Curnow (107) - Harry McKay (93) - Jack Silvagni (117)
FF: Liam Sumner (69) - Levi Casboult (73) - Matthew Wright (80)
R: Matthew Kreuzer (83) - Bryce Gibbs (120) - Patrick Cripps (120)
I: Sam Rowe (38) - Rhys Palmer (26) - Jarrod Pickett (65) - David Cuningham (49)
Emg: Sam Kerridge (34) - Dennis Armfield (32) - Andrew Phillips (31)
and compare it with 2018:
Consensus 2018 Lineup
FB: Ciaran Byrne (98) - Liam Jones (156) - Lachie Plowman (161)
HB: Caleb Marchbank (164) - Jacob Weitering (156) - Kade Simpson (150)
C: Sam Petrevski-Seton (175) - Ed Curnow (157) - Marc Murphy (175)
HF: Charlie Curnow (150) - Levi Casboult (108) - Jarrod Pickett (143)
FF: Matthew Wright (119) - Harry McKay (101) - Jack Silvagni (135)
R: Matthew Kreuzer (181) - Patrick Cripps (183) - Matthew Kennedy (177)
I: Tom Williamson (76) - David Cuningham (67) - Zac Fisher (64) - Paddy Dow (67)
EMG: Darcy Lang (66) - Jarrod Garlett (39) - Aaron Mullett (19)
IMO proven AFL players in 2017 were Plowman, Doc, Weitering, Simmo, Murph, Ed, Caz, Wright, Kreuzer (just), Gibbs, Cripps and Rowe (12 in total).
There was plenty to like about Marchbank, Byrne, SPS, Charlie, Pickett, SOJ, McKay and Cuningham (8) but except for Marchy and Byrne not so much in 2017.
Sumner and more so Palmer had had the time but failed to prove they could play at the level.
Proven AFL players in 2018 are Plowman, Jones, Weitering, Marchbank, Simmo, Murph, Ed, SPS, Charlie, Caz, Wright, Kreuzer (AA competitive), Cripps, Kennedy and Williamson (15 in total).
There is still plenty to like in Byrne, Pickett, SOJ, McKay and Cuningham though I would not regard any of them as yet "proven" at the level. And they should each improve on last year. Particularly Harry. He was mysteriously voted our most important forward in a poll last preseason. I voted for Kreuzer (who I regarded then as inferior to Phillips! - but hey, nor did I think the Beast could play). If we have such a poll this year I will give Harry my vote. As a 3rd year tall it is time he stood up and his attitude, athleticism and raw ability have me whetting my lips in hope of a 25
And Dow and Fisher (who I would almost put into the "proven" category) are much more exciting than Sumner and Palmer were this time last year.
And then I can't understand how Garlett didn't get into the consensus side.
And then there is Macreadie and Polson (considered good enough to get a game in his first season before injury) and LOB.
Conclusion (TLDR)
I do not regard our list to have greater "depth" since chucking experienced players like BB, Buckley, Palmer, Sumner and Smedts for relative newbies will shallow the revealed strength of a list.
I do regard our list to have significantly greater "potential" this year than it had last year with many of our potential players getting closer to become revelations AND with the list maturing in the midfield and forward and not just down back.
Cheers, Windy. I agree with a lot of what you're saying in principle, but I do think there's a bit more grey area in between the black and whites of the depth debate, particularly in regards to an AFL list which still has a long road ahead of it.
Some of those player comparisons I think have more substance to them under the surface. I'm not going to disagree on the BB-Dow comments as what you've said is true; Blaine had played at AFL level and had strung a few games together while PD is a relative unknown, albeit an unknown with what most would perceive as a considerably higher potential than BB.
Lang was the guy we wanted last year, not Smedts. Smedts was the banged up consolation prize that SOS had to accept to make sure the Tuohy trade went through so he could do his business with GWS. Aside from being 1st round picks and spending some time forward they're pretty different prospects. Smedts played 36 games over 5 years including 6 in 2014, 4 in 2015 and 1 in 2016. Lang played 42 in 4 years; 1 game in 2014 then 20, 13 and finally 8 last year when he spent a fair bit of time out with injury but made it back into the team for finals. Last year Smedts averaged 10.1 disposals, 3.6 tackles and 0.1 goals while Lang's equivalent numbers were 15.5, 0.6, and 5 respectively. I think it's fair to say Lang is a pretty safe to say Darcy is a decent upgrade on Billie. I'm also pretty confident to consensus 22 has it wrong here and Darcy will play from round 1, alternating between outside mid and forward, and (if he has a good run free from injury) should improve on his Cats numbers as he'll spend more time in positions that suit his game.
While both are not AFL depth, surely you've got to like the idea of TDK over Jaksch because he actually wants to be there.
With Armfield, you've got to factor in his age and why Mullett is an upgrade on 2018 DA. Dennis' 2 strengths were always his effort, which never waned, and his pace, which unfortunately was really starting to drop off. Mullett is 6 years younger and should provide more than Dennis could have over the next two years. I'm not expecting huge things but he's a relatively young guy with some 85 games under his belt who can play a couple of positions. Sounds like reasonable depth to me.
The depth discussion is an interesting one. Is it better to have great depth in say 15 or so guys on the list outside the 22 who've played 20+ games (ie proven they can play) but potentially have hit their ceiling and will remain as 'depth quality' players or to only have half a dozen of those same type with an additional 10 younger, untried/unproven players who have the potential to grow to be (much) more than that?
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 27,142
- 63,635
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Naahhh my algebra says
worst case
Dow is as much of a bust as Boekhurst was - therefore no gain and no loss.
worst case
Dow is as much of a bust as Boekhurst was - therefore no gain and no loss.
Jabba73
Hall of Famer
BB was a gun, PD will be a destroyer.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,896
- 56,308
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #485
But you're dodging the most important question of all.
Do either of them have mongrel?
I read Garlett played more in Defense in the WAFL? I see him doing the same in the AFL for us.
Ritchie will kick on this year. Has top line attributes.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 27,142
- 63,635
- AFL Club
- Carlton
thylacine60
Premium Platinum
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #488
BluesRule
Premiership Player
- Dec 16, 2013
- 3,724
- 4,216
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Doc was AA last year. Garlett has most potential from our depth players to fill the gap left by Doc in 2018.
I am hoping Garlett gives us as what Yarran did a few years ago and adds another dimension to our back line with some exit speed.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,896
- 56,308
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #490
I've seen this a bit, and I really don't agree. We haven't had a genuine forward pocket since Eddie and Jeff left, and by most accounts Garlett has done it before.
We've got plenty of HBF's, why rob our forward line of a dynamic mover who is a good shot at goal as well as a fierce tackler? We need a forward pocket a hell of a lot more than we do another HBF/rebound.
- Aug 22, 2014
- 13,685
- 49,706
- AFL Club
- Carlton
The speculation and suggestion that Cunners may drop into HB has my interest piqued. Good pace, good composure, good skills - and can still drift up the ground and hopefully hurt the opposition on the scoreboard ala Zac Tuohy used to do on occasion.
The kid screams HBF, raised it some time ago, as did a couple of others. Only knock has been his inability to
rack up big numbers, to stay in the game. Clearly being "led to the ball" is a no brainer. I think it could be the
making of Cuningham.
If there is a knock on our defence it is pace and ability to shutdown mobile small forwards. Most of our bigger
defenders are blessed with enough pace to make our defence viable against most teams. To at least have options
against smaller, faster Richmond type teams is common sense.
rack up big numbers, to stay in the game. Clearly being "led to the ball" is a no brainer. I think it could be the
making of Cuningham.
If there is a knock on our defence it is pace and ability to shutdown mobile small forwards. Most of our bigger
defenders are blessed with enough pace to make our defence viable against most teams. To at least have options
against smaller, faster Richmond type teams is common sense.
True G but some Yarran speed, dare and flair out of the back half would break the game open. BluesRule and yourself both spot on here.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,896
- 56,308
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #494
Maybe, but we need goals, a good consistent 1 to 3 goals every week from one player, and 6-10 goals across 3-4 players. I'm genuinely sick of watching the ball rebound beautifully, chaining impressive strings of possessions scything through a zone by foot or hand - as has happened multiple times over the last two years - only for the attack to fail because Levi got double-teamed and there was no-one at the front of the pack due to poor forward play and Levi being a bit of a lummox when it comes to ensuring the ball falls to advantage.
We've got the talls, but we NEED the smalls to pitch in. I like the idea of David Cuningham training to play Doc's role, as he's a better kick and a role in which people seek to give him the ball potentially allows him to develop into an Isaac Smith, but let's put someone who's perhaps more suited to playing as a small forward than anyone on the list in the forward line.
Don’t see Garlett as a forward pocket but as a winger. Yes he might lineup in the forward line but l think his speed is better utilised as an outside midfielder.
Carlton needs some outside speed desperately and Pickett , Garlett and LOB can provide this. Pickett and Garlett will no doubt be in the forward line from time to time but there speed is better used breaking the game open through the centre.
Pickett played numerous positions as a junior and for the most part was wing and half back.
I believe Garlett was a winger as a junior and spent most of his time at Gold Coast playing that position. He looked bloody good in that role for a first year player.
Will be interesting to see how Carlton structure up. If Pickett and Garlett have the right fitness levels l would be happy to see both on the wings.
On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
I'm really liking the Cuningham at HB idea the more I think about it.
Williamson can start on the wing/bench to allow Cuners to have a crack. Then give a go to Mullett and O'Shea if he doesn't do well.
From memory Enright was drafted as a midfielder and had 10-15 games before he showed a bit of consistency. Geelong already had a stacked mids so it made sense to put an abled player like him to play HB. Cuningham could be in the same position as Enright as I think once our young guns develop he won't be in our best 6 midfielders anyway.
I agree with Garlett forward too someone with that skill set and physical attributes needs to be paired up with Pickett down forward. Could be our best ever indigenous trio with SPS.
Williamson can start on the wing/bench to allow Cuners to have a crack. Then give a go to Mullett and O'Shea if he doesn't do well.
From memory Enright was drafted as a midfielder and had 10-15 games before he showed a bit of consistency. Geelong already had a stacked mids so it made sense to put an abled player like him to play HB. Cuningham could be in the same position as Enright as I think once our young guns develop he won't be in our best 6 midfielders anyway.
I agree with Garlett forward too someone with that skill set and physical attributes needs to be paired up with Pickett down forward. Could be our best ever indigenous trio with SPS.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,896
- 56,308
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #497
It's very rare that a player who plays true forward pocket goes in the first round; they're usually gifted players who are only forward until they build the tank to play midfield.
I agree that Pickett will most likely play wing/rover rather than forward; he's not a natural forward, doesn't want to be the one to kick the goal. He's not selfish enough, in the best possible way. It's like recruiting Breust only to discover he's more like Daniel Wells. I can't say the same for Garlett, though, because I haven't seen enough of him playing, and what I have has been forward, where he looked like a natural. I have no issue with him playing midfield either; just, we really do need to score these days. Our team defense, whilst noteworthy, is not going to be enough alone.
Williamson, Byrne, Simpson, Docherty, Mullet & O'Shea.
Why the * would you want to develop Cuningham as a HBF ??
Why the * would you want to develop Cuningham as a HBF ??
FFS, use that speed in the position he is best suited to plus has played in as a junior.
