Analysis The Keeffe training experiment thread

[pablo disco bar]

I am still scarred by him playing forward in an elimination final v Port Adelaide in 2012 (or 2013). He looked absolutly rubbish then as he cannot mark overhead. Bottom 4 here we come

Maybe for us to actually improve we need to bottom out instead if being in no mans land

 

[PieWithHorse]

The difference is that Keeffe was a regular in the best 22, and plays a role that we are weak in.

Thomas never established himself in the best 22 like Keeffe, and is a sub 180cm mid...we are spoilt for choice with mids.

You need to ignore the fact that either were on the rookie list in 2016, they were not active participants. It was Collingwood showing the two support during their ASADA suspension.

Keeffe automatically back on the senior list at first oppirtunity, as he is deemed a more valuable proposition. Putting him as a rookie meant we didnt have to re-draft him.

Josh given a lifeline as a rookie, more than plenty would have done following the suspension.

There was never any intention for Keeffe to be a rookie, he is viewed highly by the coaching group....despite him being a bell end

I think the part you're missing is that it almost doesn't matter how regular Keefe was in the best 22 pre-ban or how highly the coaches rate him before pre-season. It's all about data samples and flexibility.

For example if the coaches assumptions are correct then it makes no difference for Keefe or the team when he is upgraded. He will be on the full list before round one.

HOWEVER, if we consider the following scenarios:

A) Schade and Cox absolutely dominate the preseason and are clearly ahead of Keefe come round 1, or,
B) Keefe picks up a medium term injury which derails his preseason,

It is clear that it would be more beneficial to the team to make the decision at the end of pre-season as you have more information on these players and allows you greater flexibility.

 

[Quicky]

I am still scarred by him playing forward in an elimination final v Port Adelaide in 2012 (or 2013). He looked absolutly rubbish then as he cannot mark overhead. Bottom 4 here we come

Keeffe was thrown to wolves that night by Buckley. Seriously daft decision. Its a bit like the MM decision to send J Cloke to CHF in the GF.

 

[Jasper84]

Ben Reid shouldn't be playing on Hawkins Patton or Tippett in the first place.

Mick Malthouse just had his own little 'Nam flashback reading this post.

 

[ThePhantom777]

Dunn @ FB. Reid CHB. Keeffe as the third tall down back IMO. Can't have him hanging his head up forward, we need cocky - head up types in the forward line.

 

[doppleganger]

I think the part you're missing is that it almost doesn't matter how regular Keefe was in the best 22 pre-ban or how highly the coaches rate him before pre-season. It's all about data samples and flexibility.

For example if the coaches assumptions are correct then it makes no difference for Keefe or the team when he is upgraded. He will be on the full list before round one.

HOWEVER, if we consider the following scenarios:

A) Schade and Cox absolutely dominate the preseason and are clearly ahead of Keefe come round 1, or,
B) Keefe picks up a medium term injury which derails his preseason,

It is clear that it would be more beneficial to the team to make the decision at the end of pre-season as you have more information on these players and allows you greater flexibility.

Of course if any senior listed player picks up an injury it would be a set back.

That being the case, you would then never ever elevate a player off the rookie list until it was the final opportunity. No point elevating Smith, we didn't need to, he could have remained a rookie and competed in the pre-season...what if he does a hammy?

What about long term injury players, should they be demoted from the senior list and have to prove their worth as a rookie?

Ultimately the coaching group assesses the list, they ascertain if any existing rookies are worth elevating and they elevated Smith before the draft...before they had to which cost us 'flexibility'.

Keeffe is a senior listed player who we were forced to delist due to ASADA. We were then able to add him to rookie list, which in itself raised eyebrows as he was a 'wasted' spot as he wasn't even allowed to be involved at the club.

He wasn't a rookie like Smith, he was a senior listed player who was serving an ASADA suspension, who returned to the senior list at the first allowable opportunity, prior to the national draft and rookie draft...pretty clear that the club rates him.

 

[stevebbb]

I am still scarred by him playing forward in an elimination final v Port Adelaide in 2012 (or 2013). He looked absolutly rubbish then as he cannot mark overhead. Bottom 4 here we come

Don't remind me, that was so horrible to watch

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Don't remind me, that was so horrible to watch

That game never happened

 

[PieWithHorse]

Of course if any senior listed player picks up an injury it would be a set back.

That being the case, you would then never ever elevate a player off the rookie list until it was the final opportunity. No point elevating Smith, we didn't need to, he could have remained a rookie and competed in the pre-season...what if he does a hammy?

What about long term injury players, should they be demoted from the senior list and have to prove their worth as a rookie?

Ultimately the coaching group assesses the list, they ascertain if any existing rookies are worth elevating and they elevated Smith before the draft...before they had to which cost us 'flexibility'.

Keeffe is a senior listed player who we were forced to delist due to ASADA. We were then able to add him to rookie list, which in itself raised eyebrows as he was a 'wasted' spot as he wasn't even allowed to be involved at the club.

He wasn't a rookie like Smith, he was a senior listed player who was serving an ASADA suspension, who returned to the senior list at the first allowable opportunity, prior to the national draft and rookie draft...pretty clear that the club rates him.

Apologies, you are correct. Injury should not be a consideration.

I am still interested in how you see my first point though. I understand that the coaching group make an assessment of who is worth elevating, but I think that is what apex was questioning, that evaluation.

The coaches evaluation of Smith as worthy of an upgrade relied on his exposed form in 2016. However, Keefe, regardless of his status as a senior player in 2014 is much more of an unknown quantity due to his 2 years out of the game. If you disagree with me on his status as a fairly 'unknown quanity' then I believe that is our point of difference and we will have to agree to disagree. However, if you agree with me, this means his elevation is a risk and that, it could be a real possibility that 2 other rookies outperform him or fill a greater need come round 1.

The only thing I can think of that might cause the coaches to upgrade him so early is that we thought we would take one more rookie than we did, thoughts Apex36 ?

 

[Apex36]

Apologies, you are correct. Injury should not be a consideration.

I am still interested in how you see my first point though. I understand that the coaching group make an assessment of who is worth elevating, but I think that is what apex was questioning, that evaluation.

The coaches evaluation of Smith as worthy of an upgrade relied on his exposed form in 2016. However, Keefe, regardless of his status as a senior player in 2014 is much more of an unknown quantity due to his 2 years out of the game. If you disagree with me on his status as a fairly 'unknown quanity' then I believe that is our point of difference and we will have to agree to disagree. However, if you agree with me, this means his elevation is a risk and that, it could be a real possibility that 2 other rookies outperform him or fill a greater need come round 1.

The only thing I can think of that might cause the coaches to upgrade him so early is that we thought we would take one more rookie than we did, thoughts Apex36 ?

Sorry mate, I'm out on this one. Arguing the point on this with doppelganger is like banging your head against a brick wall. All pain and no gain.

On the last point though, we would have taken the same number of rookies regardless of Keeffe being upgraded. Unless you mean we took 1 extra player than we intended to in the national draft which is unlikely. Kirby was regarded as a bit of a reach as it was from memory. It's not like we were surprised he was available at 50 and used an extra pick like we did in 2013 with Marsh and Langdon.

 

[mike123]

The only reason I can think of as to why we upgraded him is because another club was going to offer him a senior list spot. From memory Essendon were interested in him and forced us to take him early in the rookie draft.

 

[doppleganger]

I am still interested in how you see my first point though. I understand that the coaching group make an assessment of who is worth elevating, but I think that is what apex was questioning, that evaluation.

My main point of difference is that it is a unique circumstance due to the ASADA suspension.

He was never really a rookie in 2016, as was not able to play due to suspension, it was a gesture of support by the Pies.

He was always considered a best 22 option, hence the return to the senior list at first opportunity.

By having him as a rookie it meant we were able to bypass the national draft to add him to the senior list, and potentially risk losing him to another club.

The coaches evaluation of Smith as worthy of an upgrade relied on his exposed form in 2016. However, Keefe, regardless of his status as a senior player in 2014 is much more of an unknown quantity due to his 2 years out of the game. If you disagree with me on his status as a fairly 'unknown quanity' then I believe that is our point of difference and we will have to agree to disagree. However, if you agree with me, this means his elevation is a risk and that, it could be a real possibility that 2 other rookies outperform him or fill a greater need come round 1.

Anybody who hasnt played footy for a couple of years is an unknown quantity and a risk.

Two guys I personally rate really highly - 'Berg and Ramsay - have given us almost nothing in their time on the senior list due to injury.

The club had a choice following the suspension to either cut the blokes clean totally, or put their arm around them and support them.

Once they chose to support, then it becomes a value judgement...they clearly value Keeffe more than Thomas.

And right now they also value Smith more than Thomas...why elevate Smith?

Could have kept him as a rookie and then let JT and Smith battle it out over pre-season for a senior list spot...a much more flexible position.

Was the club stupid for elevating Smith, which was a poor list management that cost themselves flexibility and the ability to potentially cherry pick between JT and Smith?

What if JT blitzes the pre-season games and Smith looks ordinary?

The only thing I can think of that might cause the coaches to upgrade him so early is that we thought we would take one more rookie than we did

The main reason would be the coaching staff think he is worthy of a spot on the senior list.

Keeffe was never really a rookie in 2016, so of course you have no footy to base any judgement on.

So ultimately it is a value judgement on how a player is rated.

The club rates Keeffe highly enough to have him return from his ASADA suspension as a senior listed player.

 

[left at home]

That game never happened

which game?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

which game?

Don't know at all.


Never happened

 

[Anzacday]

Quite impressive last night considering the circumstances...