Strategy Tom Langdon trade bait.

[Hagla]

Yes... well done.. you can cherry pick some players out of the entire league who improved after 22

I could then cherry pick the same list of players who haven't improved after 22 and we'd be exactly where we started... I said I don't think Langdon has much development left, not there are no players in the entire AFL who don't have development left at 22

Most players have their break out at around 22 years of age, saying you can't improve beyond that is crazy talk.

 

[Kappa]

Most players have their break out at around 22 years of age, saying you can't improve beyond that is crazy talk.

Good thing I never said that then

 

[Hagla]

Good thing I never said that then

Ok so you see very little development left in him and the fact that he's 22 has nothing to do with that but you decided to put it in the same sentence anyway

 

[Kappa]

Ok so you see very little development left in him and the fact that he's 22 has nothing to do with that but you decided to put it in the same sentence anyway

I see very little development in TOM LANGDON, I acknowledge that other players in the AFL have improved/had break out seasons after 22 but I don't predict Langdon will. However it is possible, as this is just an opinion.

There's a very long list of players who peeked early in their 20's and never really improved from there, despite cries to the contrary. Heck there's even tonnes of examples in our own team.

 

[Hagla]

I see very little development in TOM LANGDON, I acknowledge that other players in the AFL have improved/had break out seasons after 22 but I don't predict Langdon will. However it is possible, as this is just an opinion.

There's a very long list of players who peeked early in their 20's and never really improved from there, despite cries to the contrary. Heck's there's even tonnes of examples in our own team.

Yeah I have no problem with seeing little development left in him, I disagree but that's not the issue I had with the post. Being 22 isn't a reason for a player to have little development left is my issue. It's an odd number to choose since he was 21 the last time we saw him play and it's the same age most of the stars of our game break out. Pretty much anyone who's ever made it has developed beyond 22. The fact that some players didn't continue to develop their game as they got older doesn't make it anymore or less likely that a player will stop developing at 22.

So if we concede that he wasn't good enough at 18 years old to get drafted then he's obviously developed very quickly from 18-21 only to suddenly stop all development when he hits 22 don't you think? He missed out at 18, got drafted at 19 and came straight into the team with a bang, had a fairly solid year last year, got injured this year after a patchy start and all of a sudden his development has stopped because he's hit 22 whilst he's injured

 

[Kappa]

Yeah I have no problem with seeing little development left in him, I disagree but that's not the issue I had with the post. Being 22 isn't a reason for a player to have little development left is my issue. It's an odd number to choose since he was 21 the last time we saw him play and it's the same age most of the stars of our game break out. Pretty much anyone who's ever made it has developed beyond 22. The fact that some players didn't continue to develop their game as they got older doesn't make it anymore or less likely that a player will stop developing at 22.

So if we concede that he wasn't good enough at 18 years old to get drafted then he's obviously developed very quickly from 18-21 only to suddenly stop all development when he hits 22 don't you think? He missed out at 18, got drafted at 19 and came straight into the team with a bang, had a fairly solid year last year, got injured this year after a patchy start and all of a sudden his development has stopped because he's hit 22 whilst he's injured

Ok, I'll change my point to "I don't think Langdon has much development left", remove the "22" if it helps you sleep.

 

[Hagla]

Ok, I'll change my point to "I don't think Langdon has much development left", remove the "22" if it helps you sleep.

Much better, can I ask if you'd feel the same if he was a top 10 pick? I get the feeling people "see" little scope for development because he was a low draft pick and therefore can't have a high ceiling.

 

[jackcass]

Well like when Buckley took Reid away from defense we will never go anywhere if we continue to weaken it by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Howe was recruited to play mid-forward and as others have highlighted we aren't exactly short of small-medium defenders. Defense currently needs him but as players filter back I think he'll definitely slot back into the role he was recruited for and where I think he'll have the greatest impact.

 

[jackcass]

He is early in his career and developing. I don't see Seedsman, McKenzie or Brennan in him. Like a Rhyce Shaw who wasn't a finished product early days he has some strong characteristics. Learning the trade of holding the ball and making good decisions doesn't always come overnight. He should be allowed time to develop.

Yeah, Langdon has performed more consistently at a higher standard than those guys to equivalent stages in their careers. Does he have further development in him, I think so. Will he be best 22 longer term, I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[jackcass]

Most players have their break out at around 22 years of age, saying you can't improve beyond that is crazy talk.

Those players who don't improve beyond 22 don't tend to have long careers. Exactly how much further development capacity he has is anyone's guess but he's already a player that gets selected when fit and available so how much improvement is needed?

 

[THATSGOLD]

I see very little development in TOM LANGDON, I acknowledge that other players in the AFL have improved/had break out seasons after 22 but I don't predict Langdon will. However it is possible, as this is just an opinion.

There's a very long list of players who peeked early in their 20's and never really improved from there, despite cries to the contrary. Heck there's even tonnes of examples in our own team.

Also agree with you on this I fail to see how the hell hes meant to improve and which areas. He lacks pace or any sort of burst and doesn't have bounding leap. Many thought he could be like Maxwell who threw himself around but I've never seen Langdon do this once. He doesn't dive which is flaw for a defender.

 

[Scodog10]

18 clubs.. there will be more than one genuinely interested and who either have a list need or think they can get more out of a player than we have. Refer to us recruiting Jesse White from Sydney as an example... except that in that case we were the only suitor.

Again though Doodles that's not really what I'm talking about. Anyway to buy in on your discussion you may well be right. I doubt it because of his weaknesses, but an opposition club may look at him as someone that'll thrive at a club with a strong development pathway (Fremantle feels a good fit personally given his game very much suits them). For mine come trade time if he's on the table I'd expect a Trengove type situation where it's an opportunistic opposition club that chases him, but doesn't put together a deal that suits us so he stays.

In effect for those that rate him don't fret because he'll be around in 2017.

He is early in his career and developing. I don't see Seedsman, McKenzie or Brennan in him. Like a Rhyce Shaw who wasn't a finished product early days he has some strong characteristics. Learning the trade of holding the ball and making good decisions doesn't always come overnight. He should be allowed time to develop.

Of course you don't see those players in him because you rate his game currently! For instance someone I rate higher than others is Broomhead so I will naturally take a more positive slant on his game and try to find ways to discredit any negative slants.

Also I'm not actually saying that he shouldn't be allowed to develop more that our development system is currently very weak so even with time we may not see the pay-off. In essence that's why I liked the OP I don't agree with those suggesting he be traded, but I do support the discussion.

Personally the Rhys Shaw comparison is just plain wrong. The greatest asset Rhys had was his pace in game and his desire to take the game on. That ultimately lead to a lot of mistakes early career. A better comparison for Rhys is Pittard who's first thought is always to take the game on and create. That is 100% not Langdon's game given his first option, more often than not, is sideways. Yeah I get it from a decision making perspective, but that's about it. Paul Duffield is the one I'd be looking at were I you. He always seemed to have bulk time when in possession and was a very good defensive sweeper. He came in to the system at 22or thereabouts (from memory) so had gotten on top of a lot of his deficiencies.

Given he'll remain in 2017 we need to put time into Tom's deficiencies which doesn't appear to be the case from the outside looking in given the progression of his game from debut to the early part of 2016. Unfortunately he was largely the same player which doesn't cut the mustard, IMO, because if you aren't improving you get left behind. Hence Howe has left him for dead and is clearly outperforming him in a role he'd filled for the previous 45 odd games.

 

[doodles98]

Again though Doodles that's not really what I'm talking about. Anyway to buy in on your discussion you may well be right. I doubt it because of his weaknesses, but an opposition club may look at him as someone that'll thrive at a club with a strong development pathway (Fremantle feels a good fit personally given his game very much suits them). For mine come trade time if he's on the table I'd expect a Trengove type situation where it's an opportunistic opposition club that chases him, but doesn't put together a deal that suits us so he stays.

In effect for those that rate him don't fret because he'll be around in 2017.



Of course you don't see those players in him because you rate his game currently! For instance someone I rate higher than others is Broomhead so I will naturally take a more positive slant on his game and try to find ways to discredit any negative slants.

Also I'm not actually saying that he shouldn't be allowed to develop more that our development system is currently very weak so even with time we may not see the pay-off. In essence that's why I liked the OP I don't agree with those suggesting he be traded, but I do support the discussion.

Personally the Rhys Shaw comparison is just plain wrong. The greatest asset Rhys had was his pace in game and his desire to take the game on. That ultimately lead to a lot of mistakes early career. A better comparison for Rhys is Pittard who's first thought is always to take the game on and create. That is 100% not Langdon's game given his first option, more often than not, is sideways. Yeah I get it from a decision making perspective, but that's about it. Paul Duffield is the one I'd be looking at were I you. He always seemed to have bulk time when in possession and was a very good defensive sweeper. He came in to the system at 22or thereabouts (from memory) so had gotten on top of a lot of his deficiencies.

Given he'll remain in 2017 we need to put time into Tom's deficiencies which doesn't appear to be the case from the outside looking in given the progression of his game from debut to the early part of 2016. Unfortunately he was largely the same player which doesn't cut the mustard, IMO, because if you aren't improving you get left behind. Hence Howe has left him for dead and is clearly outperforming him in a role he'd filled for the previous 45 odd games.

This is the problem right here. He was a revelation from game 1 and we all naturally expected by game 45 he would be an improved player and have gone to a different level. He is EXACTLY the same player he was in game 1. Hasn't developed one iota. He has fallen down our pecking order now we have Howe and have started playing Adams at half back. For us, Scharenberg and Ramsey coming back next year makes Langdon very tradeable. Disagree with you that he won't be popular with a number of clubs come trade time.

 

[DaVe86]

I like Tom, but I think he'd definitely be on trade table for a reasonable price.

I like his leadership credentials and also he ability to take intercept marks. However, he has a huge problem with his footskills at this stage. He'd have to improve this area out of site to make the grade.

The issue he faces is that Jeremy Howe and Jonathon Marsh have probably shot past him. Both these guys have real weapons (Howe is a better mark and kick, and Marsh is a strong mark with enormous pace). We also have Scharenberg to come back who has a few extra tricks than Langdon.

I hope I'm wrong, because I really liked what Langdon offered in his first season.

He may need to work heavily on his inside game and potentially develop as an inside midfielder. Again though, his disposal and decision making is questionable under pressure. With his lack of pace, he needs to have elite footskills to threaten.

If he has any trade value, it would be this year. If he spends a year at VFL level next year then he'll have no value.

I don't think we'll go into trade period actively shopping him around, but I think in the back of our minds we'd be open to the trade for a 2nd rounder or as part of a package.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

This is how I view our backline depth: (Only the 3 bolded are garaunteed best 22 IMO)
(ignoring guys who can rotate into HB like Adams, Varcoe, Oxley etc,)

Talls - Reid / Brown / Frost / Marsh / Keefe
We can't play both Brown and Frost alongside Reid - each have their pros and cons. Brown is more reliable when just sticking to the FB position and knows his limitations. Frost isn't as good in the context, but has more pace and agility, and more versatile a defender, however struggles to play within his limits offensively. Wouldn't be too fussed if we lost/traded one of these two.
Marsh is more versatile than the above 2 and I am more confident about him being required going forward. Can either step up into that 2nd tall spot, or be played as a 3rd tall/mid-sized defender). Also could end up having much more of a role offensively than either Frost or Brown could ever provide.
As things stand right now, Keefe will only be extra depth in case of multiple injuries. Happy to persist with him if he has spent his time away productively, but he will have a bit of work to do in order to push back into the team in 2017.

Mids - Howe / Langdon / Scharenberg / Goldsack
Howe playing great in this role at the moment. But you wonder if he (or the club) will be happy to persist with this once we get more defenders back, and whether we try him as a forward now that he knows our gameplan more. I am not fussed either way, but expect he will be moved back forward at some stage.
After that - I think Langdon still will have an important role for us. If we are only playing 2 talls then I think we need 2 guys from this group. If we play Marsh as that 3rd tall/mid, then we only have room for one - which would be Howe right now, but Langdon if Howe moves forward. Ideally Sharenberg gets healthy and can consistently play this role - jumping ahead of Langdon, but I don't see why we wouldn't play both in the same backline (if Howe moves forward)
Goldsack should be a depth player at the most, getting 5-odd games/year as required. If he's happy in that role, and his salary matches it, then I would keep him because I like what he adds in that type of role... but if he wants to move for more garaunteed playing time, then I wouldn't have a problem moving him.

Smalls - Williams / Ramsay / Maynard / Sinclair / Toovey
Not sure on the order of the middle 3 in this group. Could make a case (when healthy) for any 1, 2 or 3, of these guys to play alongside Marley, with Toovey having fallen behind a bit this year. Ideally we keep this group at the club and play horses for courses.
---

So back to Langdon. I still see him as a regular in our 22, or as a 1st replacement. Only way I see him being expendable is if a combination of these 3 things happen:
1. We consistently play Marsh as a 3rd tall/mid defender.
2. Howe stays in defence.
3. Scharenberg gets, and stays, healthy

 

[Buckley is my hero]

I see him close in style to Phillips (though opposite feet) without the foot skills. I'd trade him in a heart beat to get the points needed to recruit Josh Daicos and Callum Brown. StKilda seems to like those types of players who accumulate plenty of possessions. Trading Langdon to StKilda for a third plus fourth draft pick might get us the points needed to secure our F/S picks.

 

[THATSGOLD]

I see him close in style to Phillips (though opposite feet) without the foot skills. I'd trade him in a heart beat to get the points needed to recruit Josh Daicos and Callum Brown. StKilda seems to like those types of players who accumulate plenty of possessions. Trading Langdon to StKilda for a third plus fourth draft pick might get us the points needed to secure our F/S picks.

I would trade him for a ready made player I think our list needs that. Someone like a Varcoe.

 

[nahnah]

I would trade him for a ready made player I think our list needs that. Someone like a Varcoe.

I would trade Langdon for Jeffy Garlett, no idea if Melbourne would though but he is dropped atm.

 

[Kappa]

I see him close in style to Phillips (though opposite feet) without the foot skills. I'd trade him in a heart beat to get the points needed to recruit Josh Daicos and Callum Brown. StKilda seems to like those types of players who accumulate plenty of possessions. Trading Langdon to StKilda for a third plus fourth draft pick might get us the points needed to secure our F/S picks.

If we can't get a 2nd round pick for Langdon there's no point.

A 3rd round pick is virtually worth nothing

 

[Anzacday]

If we can't get a 2nd round pick for Langdon there's no point.

A 3rd round pick is virtually worth nothing

Could be worth a Brown or a Daicos actually.

 

[legendstatus]

Langdon and Oxley would get us a couple of picks or swap for other needs. We have too many back flankers.

I keep reading this but I just can't get past the part that says too many!

The flankers we have should be delisted so we can attempt to recruit real ones!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Horaceg]

Much better, can I ask if you'd feel the same if he was a top 10 pick? I get the feeling people "see" little scope for development because he was a low draft pick and therefore can't have a high ceiling.

He wasn't a low draft pick, he was in the 60's for a reason, he hadn't shown enough to be much higher plus it was his second year in the draft if memory serves me right. He has done well to get where he has and he may get better but he doesn't ooze talent, he is a good serviceable player but you never know.

 

[Hagla]

He wasn't a low draft pick, he was in the 60's for a reason, he hadn't shown enough to be much higher plus it was his second year in the draft if memory serves me right. He has done well to get where he has and he may get better but he doesn't ooze talent, he is a good serviceable player but you never know.

I would refer to late draft picks as low and early draft picks as high so I'd say he was a low draft pick. But you may be right that he doesn't have much development left. I still think he has plenty left and he's already shown more than any other recruiters thought he would otherwise he would have gone before his pick in the 60's

 

[TheWoodsOf72]

Would persist with Langdon rather than frost or sinclair or goldsack or toovey

 

[doings]

If we can't get a 2nd round pick for Langdon there's no point.

A 3rd round pick is virtually worth nothing

Second round is probably overs for Tommy
Maybe a really late second round at very best