On 26/11/2011 at 03:51, daisycutter said:

5 years, 20 games and delisted and picked up at 54, yet people see him as a 'ready-to-play' KPP no less

One of those people is the coach.

Jason McCartney was a top 5 draft pick and a very highly rated junior that found the going tough in his first 5 years of senior footy. He was tried as a forward and discarded after two years at Collingwood before receiving similar treatment at Adelaide. He went on to have a great career down back at North. Likewise our own Anthony Ingerson tried out as a forward in his early days at Adelaide. He was flicked after 3 years and became a staple of the Demon defence over many years.

Sellar is a calculated gamble. For me it's low risk with potentially high reward. If he doesn't make it he's been adequate depth for a couple of years while our young talls develop. As pointed out by Prendergast, we don't have many strong key position players around the age of 23+. In the main they're young and under developed, so Clark and Sellar help redress the balance.

From all reports Sellar has been a confidence player that hasn't made a position his own. There's no doubt that some players thrive in different environments. With the right coaching, with an easy to understand and disciplined game-plan we'll give Sellar every opportunity to succeed. He has undoubted talent and a year out from his draft many predicted he could go at no. 1, so it's up to him to return the faith shown by the MFC. I'd give him every chance to become a key defender and I reckon Frawley would relish having another strong tall saddle up beside him.

  On 26/11/2011 at 07:41, bing181 said:

One of those people is the coach.

where has he said that he expects him to be a KPP in 2012

I definitely think some of the theorey behind this is that we were small and got pushed around easily last year. Neeld wants us to be physically stronger. The current 22 (watts and jurrah, howe and green) aren't that sort of player, at least yet. The developing crop (cook, gawn) will take another 2-3 years before they are playing consistant senior footy, and probably another 1-2 before they are physically strong enough.

By drafting Seller we add height and strength to the list. Will he play 20 games and be valuable? Who knows. But if we need to fill a gap with a mountain for the purpose of making a contest for Watts and Jurrah to run around near, he can probably do that, and no one else on our list can. And if the opposition does not respect him with a tall and strong opponent, he will likely stand out; against 2nd or 3rd tall defenders he will likely have a height and weight advantage, making him dangerous, even if he is only an average player. And if Seller takes that key defender it means Watts/Jurrah/Howe all step down the ladder to lesser defenders as well.

OK so Mitch Clark might be taking this role most of the time, and is the better footballer of the two. But having Seller on the list does two things: one, it gives us versatility if Mitch goes down, or if he has to go into the ruck to cover Jamar, or Seller can go back if required as well. And, two, if he isn't playing AFL, Casey will have a big tall bloke up forward, playing a similar role to Mitch Clark.

You may not think that helping Casey in this way is important. But as far as I'm concerned we want the players at Casey to play as similar to the MFC as possible, to make for easier transitions from VFL to AFL levels, and to aid player development. If we have a short forward line at Casey, how will we instigate the same game plan we use at AFL level?

  On 26/11/2011 at 11:46, deanox said:

By drafting Seller we add height and strength to the list. Will he play 20 games and be valuable? Who knows. But if we need to fill a gap with a mountain for the purpose of making a contest for Watts and Jurrah to run around near, he can probably do that, and no one else on our list can. And if the opposition does not respect him with a tall and strong opponent, he will likely stand out; against 2nd or 3rd tall defenders he will likely have a height and weight advantage, making him dangerous, even if he is only an average player. And if Seller takes that key defender it means Watts/Jurrah/Howe all step down the ladder to lesser defenders as well.

It makes sense that Sellar will be developed as a defender and apparently last night he confirmed this on twitter. I see a role for him there if he's good enough.

  On 26/11/2011 at 07:41, bing181 said:

One of those people is the coach.

  On 26/11/2011 at 11:08, daisycutter said:

where has he said that he expects him to be a KPP in 2012

My apologies bing. Neeld did say that and quite categorically too, not just a bit of normal spin

Frankly I'm amazed he went so far in his comments

I guess we'll see if he picks him 1st round

I certainly hope he makes it, but my comments were more to the point that his record would seem to indicate he has a long way to go, and some posters seemed to be getting a little carried away.

  On 27/11/2011 at 06:17, daisycutter said:

I certainly hope he makes it, but my comments were more to the point that his record would seem to indicate he has a long way to go

Don't know that many would disagree.

With some players in the past and I'm hoping Sellar will be an example of this, being delisted can really make one reevaluate and strive to get the best out of themselves.

The moment he got delisted James had to go back to thinking about finding a normal job, training, getting work skills etc. etc.

The fact Melbourne have given him another opportunity I'd think he would so grateful and so certain to not want to find himself back in that situation he'll do everything possible to rectify his earlier career flaws.

Sellar's career has been interesting in the sense that he was initially valued a top 3 pick and maybe expected his natural ability would bring him success for his career. Now he's had that pain and fear of the unknown; I and i'm sure Melbourne are both hoping he comes out and shows why so many originally rated him so highly.

Good luck James. I have faith!

Short interview with James Sellar..

http://video.heraldsun.com.au/2172086639/Second-chance-Sellar

Watched Moneyball last night. Great theory, great film (great book by all accounts too).

James Sellar, pick 54.

That’s Moneyball theory right there. Someone that no one really rated because of what they can’t do ended up winning a Brownlow Medal (Dane Swan, pick 58), and countless numbers of high draftees have ended up busts. Not saying Sellar will suddenly become the player he was deigned to be, but…

Sellar was a potential no.1 pick (rivalling Bryce Gibbs for the honour), a big man with pace, agility, good game sense and marking ability. Gun recruiters were effusive in their praise, after a bout of glandular fever he was picked by his hometown Crows at pick 14. 5 years, 21 games, delisted and redrafted at pick 54 in a shallow draft. Most Melbourne supporters are hoping he can plug some holes as a backup. He may not offer what most people expected him to when he was 17, but he could add something of significant value to the team. He’s 22 and he’s generally viewed as lucky to get a second chance.

Interesting to look at Collingwood’s list and see how many players they’ve picked up who were passed over by other clubs (either in the draft, or through trade/delisting). Even their guns Thomas and Pendlebury were generally seen as bolters who only came into consideration as high draft picks quite late. Thomas’ late run of form saw him come into top 5 consideration in 2005, but Nugget Jones was still widely seen as a better prospect than Pendlebury going in. I love Jonesy, but recent history backs Collingwoods drafting decisions fairly heavily. Collingwood look to have been ahead of the curve for some time now.

Anyone who has an interest in what happens behind the scenes at a sports organisation should see Moneyball.

Looks like he is earmarked as the 'gorilla tamer' if he can prove himself more reliable than Warnock was in his few games last year.

Some believe it will push Garland onto a flank but I am not sure about that...

If Sellar can get a game I think he will play on the hulking FF (Dawes, Lynch, Petrie, Tippett) or the resting ruckman (Sandilands, Mumford, etc).

Invariably we have attempted to get Rivers to play on this type, Frawley to play on the more dynamic FFs (J.Riewoldt, Brown, Kennedy) and Garland to play on the CHF-type lead up players (Franklin, N.Riewoldt, Cloke[when outside 50]). Garland and Frawley also interchangeably play on smaller dangerous forwards (Johnson, Le Cras, Giansiracusa).

So I see Rivers being pushed into a Nick "I don't like playing on anybody but I am bloody effective" Maxwell role. Which I think he would excel at.

But Sellar has to prove himslef up to that first. I think that the extra two inches he has on Rivers and Warnock will help him play that role.

  On 01/12/2011 at 01:08, ChaserJ said:

Watched Moneyball last night. Great theory, great film (great book by all accounts too).

James Sellar, pick 54.

That’s Moneyball theory right there. Someone that no one really rated because of what they can’t do ended up winning a Brownlow Medal (Dane Swan, pick 58), and countless numbers of high draftees have ended up busts. Not saying Sellar will suddenly become the player he was deigned to be, but…

Sellar was a potential no.1 pick (rivalling Bryce Gibbs for the honour), a big man with pace, agility, good game sense and marking ability. Gun recruiters were effusive in their praise, after a bout of glandular fever he was picked by his hometown Crows at pick 14. 5 years, 21 games, delisted and redrafted at pick 54 in a shallow draft. Most Melbourne supporters are hoping he can plug some holes as a backup. He may not offer what most people expected him to when he was 17, but he could add something of significant value to the team. He’s 22 and he’s generally viewed as lucky to get a second chance.

Interesting to look at Collingwood’s list and see how many players they’ve picked up who were passed over by other clubs (either in the draft, or through trade/delisting). Even their guns Thomas and Pendlebury were generally seen as bolters who only came into consideration as high draft picks quite late. Thomas’ late run of form saw him come into top 5 consideration in 2005, but Nugget Jones was still widely seen as a better prospect than Pendlebury going in. I love Jonesy, but recent history backs Collingwoods drafting decisions fairly heavily. Collingwood look to have been ahead of the curve for some time now.

Anyone who has an interest in what happens behind the scenes at a sports organisation should see Moneyball.

Moneyball is stats related. Sellar's stats over the past 5 years are poor. I don't see a Moneyball correlation in the recruitment of Sellar.

  On 26/11/2011 at 06:56, Axis of Bob said:

Zac Dawson

Tom Lonergan

Trent Croad

Chris Tarrant

What do they all have in common?

They are all talls?

Dawson is actually quite simple, Hawks gave him too much responsibility too early and he didn't cut it and instead of giving him more time they flicked him, the saints got the best out of him. It's somewhat ironic that Dawson was overtaken by Gilham who himself was a flop at his original club - Port.

Lonergan was a battling forward who came good as a defender when given more time, but is also at the best club in the land.

Croad was a talented forward who Hawthorn traded for an offer too good to refuse to Freo, who didn't have a clue what they were doing at that stage and then came back to Hawthorn and was a reliable defender, however, he could have played just as well up forward.

Tarrant was a gun forward who lost his way on and off the field and Freo did the opposite of Croad and turned him into a star defender only to lose him back to Collingwood.

Sellar is somewhere between Dawson and Lonergan I think. He hasn't shown anything like what Croad and Tarrant did before they lobbed at a second club, yet he hasn't been burned like Dawson was.

  On 26/11/2011 at 08:34, Ben-Hur said:

Jason McCartney was a top 5 draft pick and a very highly rated junior that found the going tough in his first 5 years of senior footy. He was tried as a forward and discarded after two years at Collingwood before receiving similar treatment at Adelaide. He went on to have a great career down back at North. Likewise our own Anthony Ingerson tried out as a forward in his early days at Adelaide. He was flicked after 3 years and became a staple of the Demon defence over many years. ................

Sellar is a calculated gamble. For me it's low risk with potentially high reward...........

I particularly like the Ingerson analogy - if he turns out anything like Anthony it will be a massive coup; if not pick 54 in a weak draft isn't a disaster- skeptics please name some names of those taken after him who you think will turn out as guns.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, Craig knows the guy pretty well, and presumably knows just why he couldn't get a game; hopefully he also now knows how to correct that fault. If he thought that he was as some have posted a "hopeless spud" would he tarnish his reputation at a new club by not just ignoring the guy? That would be the easy way out and the new MFC doesn't tolerate the easy way out!!! Maybe it was 'cultural' : hell, who would really want to play in Adelaide?

  On 02/12/2011 at 20:34, Ben-Hur said:

Moneyball is stats related. Sellar's stats over the past 5 years are poor. I don't see a Moneyball correlation in the recruitment of Sellar.

The essence of moneyball is finding value in a player who's undervalued by the market.

Sellar didn't play many games, so it's true, there isn't much statistical measure (in a footballing output sense). However it's a logical selection in a list filling sense. The stats applicable in this instance appear to be related to a type of player required to complete our list build. Specifically, having a certain number of players, of a certain age range in each position. A 195+ CM player in the 22-25 year old bracket, who can play multiple positions. Clearly Sellar's vital statistics played a massive part in his selection. Oakland used OBP, we used height and age.

  On 26/11/2011 at 05:52, Nasher said:

Yeah - the Dawes / Leigh Brown is a huge stretch. My expectations are much lower. This is a big second chance; good luck to him.

Perhaps - but I don't think pick 54 and $60K a year would've got Dawes to the MFC.

  On 06/12/2011 at 15:10, ChaserJ said:

The essence of moneyball is finding value in a player who's undervalued by the market.

Sellar didn't play many games, so it's true, there isn't much statistical measure (in a footballing output sense). However it's a logical selection in a list filling sense. The stats applicable in this instance appear to be related to a type of player required to complete our list build. Specifically, having a certain number of players, of a certain age range in each position. A 195+ CM player in the 22-25 year old bracket, who can play multiple positions. Clearly Sellar's vital statistics played a massive part in his selection. Oakland used OBP, we used height and age.

You can try and shape it, turn it, mould it, frame it, anyway you like, but recruiting Sellar isn't a 'moneyball' type selection.

I understand why we recruited him. The reasons are obvious.

  On 10/12/2011 at 23:23, Ben-Hur said:

You can try and shape it, turn it, mould it, frame it, anyway you like

That cuts both ways man. You have one belief, I have another, and that's ok, we're allowed to have them. Can we move on now?

Every year is different for young players and a lot depends on coach/player relationships .i.e Zac "Lovechild" Dawson .

Sellar will be ok if he respects the regime .

I always think of "The Train" analogy-you either get on or get off it .

If you want a ticket ,you prove you want it .

Sellar is going to have to fill the hole that forwards lead to and will be knocked around a bit .

A good year for him would be 8-10 games .