Jump to content

Lampers

Members
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

236 Excellent

About Lampers

  • Rank
    Demon

Recent Profile Visitors

2,198 profile views
  1. Agree. He just seems to make good decisions and have good skills.
  2. I hope I’m wrong but I’m concerned Hore is OK at many things, but not AFL standard in enough things except his marking. Not big enough to defend a true big forward or fast enough on the lead. Not athletic/agile enough to defend a small or medium forward. Disposal/decision making not good enough to be a distributor. As per @poita’s post, Lever is better at what Hore is best at and I struggle to see them both in the same team. I think Hore is solid depth, especially if Lever gets injured again, but I can’t see him holding down a first 22 position in the backline. There’s a reason he was a prominent VFL player for a while yet wasn’t drafted. Hibberd and Jetta look to be the incumbents closest to being over the hill, so maybe Hore can be trained hard to improve his deficiencies to take over from one of them. Needs to work on agility to be like a Jetta, or straight line pace to be like Hibberd. He shouldn’t ever lose his ability to read a ball in the air and mark it as that’s probably a reasonably natural talent for him.
  3. A competently managed player list will always result in the flexibility to accomodate a player like Martin. A team should aim to be x$ under the cap as a standing goal, and then pre-pay players once your list is settled to eat up the gap and be closer to the cap which then frees up future space. You would only ever want to be at your cap without pre-payments if you were going hard for a premiership in that year. Collingwood could very well be in that spot for 2020. If you bring in an Elliott or a Martin when you weren’t expecting to then you can’t do the pre payments to the same extent. On top of this the AFL introduced further flex a couple of years back so a team can be under the minimum floor or over the maximum ceiling of the cap so long as it corrects itself on a rolling basis - meaning you can’t be forever under the minimum or over the maximum. Interestingly GWS basically knew they would lose some of their top talent, so went with a unique approach that only they and Gold Coast could’ve done given their startup concession gluts of high draft picks all from the same year or tightly bunched for age profile. GWS project to exceed the cap but manage this through inevitably losing some of those high paid players but getting good picks in return to keep their list balanced for age profile, or having salary dump fire sales or letting free agents walk such as Scully, Tomlinson and Patton if they surprisingly retained more players than they anticipated (e.g. I expect they thought they would lose one or both of Kelly and Coniglio).
  4. Absolutely agree this is a great opportunity that Melbourne should pursue. Luke Ball was a long time ago and things may be different now, and as much as we didn’t like it Ball nominated for the National draft, Ball correctly gambled that while Melbourne would definitely use the #1 preseason draft pick on him given the only real value of pre-season draft picks was a very early one to leverage such scenarios, Melbourne would not waste a more valuable National Draft pick on him which would mean forgoing a chance at a relatively highly rated 18 year old. Ball had the choice to nominate for either the National or Pre-season draft which was a relatively new choice at the time if I recall correctly. Ultimately with Ball wiser heads prevailed and Melbourne didn’t draft a player against their will which is unlikely to have worked out well for either party. I think people have correctly identified that if Melbourne want Martin, the key is getting Martin to want to be at Melbourne and the potential advantage is May and Kolodjashnij assuming that they had reasonable relationships with Martin rather than financial terms. GC will likely also be trying really hard to get Martin to reconsider and re-sign and that would depend on how bad the relationship is between them and Martin. While Melbourne were a poor team during the Ball situation and also had a really poor 2019, another difference is Martin will probably perceive Melbourne are a team with high potential who had a poor year, rather than a rubbish team which would be similar to playing for Gold Coast from a success perspective. GC threat of “re-sign or else you go to Melbourne” isn’t likely to be much of a threat.
  5. While the AFL love to change rules every year, I doubt they’ve changed this one. Martin can nominate a prohibitive salary ask and length so that only Carlton are likely to draft him, and is free to renegotiate to a minimum salary deal after getting to Carlton if he wants. BUT the original ask is what hits the salary cap, not the actual money paid in the renegotiated deal to make sure clubs don’t use this to manipulate the draft. Also, again from memory, I’m pretty sure a player can only nominate X dollars over Y years which prevents them setting an ask of say $1.5m in year one and then 100k per year for the next three if their desired club can accomodate something like that. The player can only say $1.8m over four years. Finally, I think if the player nominated terms (they aren’t required nominate terms, although Martin would) it can’t be just for one year so they can’t do the “$1.5m for one year” and then sign the 100k for the next three in the subsequent contract to simulate the earlier example.
  6. My memory is Junior’s calves were playing up (old man injury) and he was struggling to get up week after week. He had just turned 34. He then took an entire year off, and played one season at GWS in an extraordinary circumstance where they were desperate for experience (i.e. no other AFL club would have entertained the prospect) and only managed 13 games with injuries catching up again. I still reckon he was cooked but our memories seem to differ. But out of respect I would have preferred he was offered a deal on the club’s terms.
  7. Agree. My understanding is Jones is a “me first” kind of guy at the heart of it. So he isn’t the sort of leader you need. Great service over many years, very solid player at his peak and the team’s best for a period in some of its darkest times. He could win the ball, get it moving forward, tackle, and developed his kicking from poor to passable in a similar way to Todd Viney many years before. But once he was displaced as a first choice on-baller he simply never had the tricks (read skills) to see out his time on a flank or wing. This has been painfully obvious from mid last year (when he got moved out of the first choice midfield) and all of this year. Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but it felt like for every smart “veteran” thing he did in a game, there were two or three “wow, I’d be disappointed if a first year player did that” moments. At least Lewis, who I wasn’t a massive fan of, had that ratio the other way around. The right thing to do is offer him a deal on the club’s terms as a show of loyalty. Nothing more. If Jones is unwilling to accept the 270k as rumoured and back himself in for performance bonuses - given the “overs” he took for many years compared to what he would have received had he jumped to another club where he would have been in the 5 to 15 best on the list range instead of top dog at Melbourne - then that would just reinforce his “me first” mentality. The Junior McDonald error was pushing him into “retirement” for the sake of one list position and minimal salary. Junior was cooked, Jones is cooked and will only get worse. It sounds like Melbourne are making a respectful but also sensible offer this time around that balances Jones’ past contributions but also reflects his likely future trajectory.
  8. I thought from the little I’ve seen of Casey that Chandler stood out for pace and creativity. But he clearly wasn’t getting enough of the ball as it was in brief flashes and then unsighted for long stretches. What is harder to see watching a game in TV is the ANB style “pressure acts”. If his are high and that’s why he’s playing, I’d be happy with a guy who pressures to keep the ball locked in, and on the rare occasion they get the ball do something reasonably constructive.
  9. I’ve got a shoulder injury at the moment from bowling. Slight tear to a tendon, inflamed bursar and maybe some carteledge damage and potentially some ligament damage too but I haven’t had an MRI to confirm the last two. Carteledge and ligaments require surgery to repair. In the direction where I need to use the torn tendon I probably have about 30% of my regular strength before quite striking pain kicks in. Maybe I could push through and have more strength if I had it strapped and jabbed up. I can absolutely believe given Oliver needed surgery on both shoulders that this could have significantly impacted his ability to get his arms free when getting tackled, handball with full power and tackle with full strength.
  10. My understanding was he was happy to play another year if the club wanted him to, but was also comfortable to get started on his post AFL life. The club didn’t want him to go again, so he retired. Not a genuine retirement where the player has had enough, but not pushed out against his will either. Somewhere in the middle. And yes, he wasn’t “one of the boys” in the eyes of the footy department and therefore was always a mediocre game away from being dropped.
  11. Unless the players are literally using their head to do something, their listed height isn’t that relevant.. Different sport, but I’m 185cm with short arms for my height and I got toweled up on rebounding last night by a guy who was probably 175cm tall but with good strength, judgement, aggression and better athleticism than me. I also suspect he had long arms for his height. In summary, where the top of your head finishes is pretty irrelevant and an unsophisticated measure. I’d prefer they listed height of where the fingers are with an arm straight up is far more relevant as it takes into account shoulder position and arm length and better represents something useful on the field.
  12. Spot on. Already using 3/40 odd spots on predominantly single position players in Gawn, Preuss and Bradtke. Having Bradtke not on the regular list looks like the perfect combination to me. I reckon every club rolls the dice that they won’t have their first and second choice rucks go down injured and if they do they will have to improvise. Tim Smith or Sam Frost would have to do in a pinch if Weideman (who rucked lots in the VFL) and T.Mc won’t be risked, but with a very different ruck strategy than what you’d have with a potentially dominant Gawn or Preuss. We had a preview in 2017 when Gawn and Spencer went down and things were cobbled together with Pedersen, Watts and T.Mc. I agree the mid year draft allows for more contingency in case of a significant early season ruck injury.
  13. Or we will see 23 and/or 28 flipped for some established “filling a need” players. There is so much that happens with draft order once you get past around pick 15 - even more so now with live pick trading during the draft - I doubt moving up from mid 30s to late 20s is about a specific player.
  14. Agree. The war is the premiership. The battle is the trade period. A single trade is an engagement. So long as everything is driving to winning the war the other parts don’t matter in isolation. Who knows if we have the right strategy. Time will tell.
×
×
  • Create New...