Carlton indicating they are into Sam Gray from Port. He would be great for us. You would hope we are inquiring.

Sadly though, it may be that the Blues are already more appealing to FA than us.

Edited July 15, 20196 yr by Demon3

If you were the recruiting manager with pick #1 in the draft, would you pick Rowell or Anderson first?

2 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

If you were the recruiting manager with pick #1 in the draft, would you pick Rowell or Anderson first?

Anderson

Brad Hill and Ed Langdon. Will probably end up with another contested ball winner who is 'flexible' or defender.

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Anderson

Okay, but why? Not challenging your judgement, just interested in your rationale.

 

Edited July 15, 20196 yr by TRIGON

21 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Welcome to Demonland, Cam!

The guys names is 'cam' lol not me. But thanks, he's a zippy small forward with really good kicking

7 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

If you were the recruiting manager with pick #1 in the draft, would you pick Rowell or Anderson first?

Curious. Would GCS trade down to our pick 3 if we offered up player/s. Then we can actually make the choice. Otherwise going into the draft with pick 2 you'd probably just take one or the other, if they're that close in talent? If Rowell is a clear pick 1, then again, would we look at trading pick 2 and player/s for pick 1?

Edited July 15, 20196 yr by John Demonic

On 7/9/2019 at 7:30 AM, Lord Nev said:

We are the worst team for ground balls inside 50, Petracca is top of the comp for winning ground balls inside 50.

You don't trade out players that are helping in our weakest areas.

 

That's exactly what I argued when I said it was crazy to think of trading watts.

Our biggest weakness is our kicking and we get rid of our best kick (by some margin), one of only two elite kicks in the team.

 As I have said before I respect and understand the decision but I believe it was the wrong one and still do. I understand the cultural argument but you make that work somehow.

Watts has in spades what we are missing - elite foot skills, good decision making and a proven ability to hit targets inside 50. And a proven ability to kick clutch goals. Can't see him playing on from 20 metres out, on a slight angle when we need a key goal.

Edited July 15, 20196 yr by binman

42 minutes ago, binman said:

That's exactly what I argued when I said it was crazy to think of trading watts.

Our biggest weakness is our kicking and we get rid of our best kick (by some margin), one of only two elite kicks in the team.

 As I have said before I respect and understand the decision but I believe it was the wrong one and still do. I understand the cultural argument but you make that work somehow.

Watts has in spades what we are missing - elite foot skills, good decision making and a proven ability to hit targets inside 50. And a proven ability to kick clutch goals. Can't see him playing on from 20 metres out, on a slight angle when we need a key goal.

I agree mate, and I've said similar things about Kent and Hogan as well, who were two of our best users going inside 50. I understand the different reasons both left, but we didn't try super hard to keep them. Especially with Kent it hurts when we offered vandenBerg the contract length that Kent wanted but couldn't get.

We've shipped out 3 of our best users going forward and haven't replaced their skill, so we shouldn't be surprised by how far that part of our game has fallen away (when it wasn't even that great to begin with).

38 minutes ago, binman said:

That's exactly what I argued when I said it was crazy to think of trading watts.

Our biggest weakness is our kicking and we get rid of our best kick (by some margin), one of only two elite kicks in the team.

 As I have said before I respect and understand the decision but I believe it was the wrong one and still do. I understand the cultural argument but you make that work somehow.

Watts has in spades what we are missing - elite foot skills, good decision making and a proven ability to hit targets inside 50. And a proven ability to kick clutch goals. Can't see him playing on from 20 metres out, on a slight angle when we need a key goal.

Interesting you bring up kicking binman and I do agree with the above. I was just reading a stats file article on AFL.com.au on where we have gone wrong this season and it’s about contested ball and some kind of kick rating system.

I always find these data systems a tad complicated but on ranking numbers alone it doesn’t look good. Goody said on Sunday it’s our ability to get the ball and effectively using it on the outside that’s posed a challenge. The article also touches on our interest in Langdon and Hill for outside issues, yet those two are not strong performers in the kick rating metric this season. 

Some like stats, some don’t, it was an interesting Tuesday morning read anyway.

FWIW Jones is ranked as our highest performer on this system. 

17 hours ago, grazman said:

Tom Papley has a year to run on his contract, but there is media speculation he maybe coming back to Victoria.  Articles mention the Blues, but I think Horse and Tom would be looking at the best possible deal. 

I'm hopefull we put our hand up for Papley. Watch this space on Carlton, they're linked to just about every player shorter than 6 foot in their search for forward and back flankers. Hard to tell which are real and which are noise

15 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

If you were the recruiting manager with pick #1 in the draft, would you pick Rowell or Anderson first?

Trade it for Langdon, Hill, pick 7 take the highest skilled mid/forward available and let Freo deal with the unnecessary pressure on the new kid. 

35 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Trade it for Langdon, Hill, pick 7 take the highest skilled mid/forward available and let Freo deal with the unnecessary pressure on the new kid. 

Yes I wholeheartedly agree AW Good trading! Given our poor development record.

still cant believe we picked up sparrow in last years draft. he's exactly what we dont need. another inside mid with questionable skills.

22 hours ago, TRIGON said:

Okay, but why? Not challenging your judgement, just interested in your rationale.

 

Anderson is a star!  

9 minutes ago, Dr.D said:

still cant believe we picked up sparrow in last years draft. he's exactly what we dont need. another inside mid with questionable skills.

Draft for talent. Trade for need.

Whether you agree with picks or not, every club does this. Get with the program, it's not hard

19 minutes ago, Dr.D said:

still cant believe we picked up sparrow in last years draft. he's exactly what we dont need. another inside mid with questionable skills.

The kid is in his 1st season, give him a break 

11 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

I agree mate, and I've said similar things about Kent and Hogan as well, who were two of our best users going inside 50. I understand the different reasons both left, but we didn't try super hard to keep them. Especially with Kent it hurts when we offered vandenBerg the contract length that Kent wanted but couldn't get.

We've shipped out 3 of our best users going forward and haven't replaced their skill, so we shouldn't be surprised by how far that part of our game has fallen away (when it wasn't even that great to begin with).

Kent's kicking is iffy at best. Terrible call. 

Kent was allowed to go elsewhere because he was far too inconsistent. Im no VDB fan but at least he shows consistent work rate, hence the contract offer.

3 minutes ago, A F said:

Kent's kicking is iffy at best. Terrible call. 

Kent was allowed to go elsewhere because he was far too inconsistent. Im no VDB fan but at least he shows consistent work rate, hence the contract offer.

Kent's delivery inside 50 (which was what I said, not a general comment about kicking), particularly in tandem with Hogan, was fantastic. I watched him very closely during his time at Melbourne.

Kent wasn't let go because he was 'inconsistent', I can tell you as a fact that MFC did not offer more than a 1 year deal due to his injury history and because he has a new family he took the security of 3 years at the Saints for their sake.

Staggering that the MFC then turned around and offered an even more injury prone inside mid type that 3 year deal. That has clearly proven to have been a terrible decision, it's not even debatable.

2 hours ago, Dr.D said:

still cant believe we picked up sparrow in last years draft. he's exactly what we dont need. another inside mid with questionable skills.

You clearly haven't watched him play much if you're labeling him as purely an "inside mid".

He's a quick burst player with speed and a nose for the goals. But sure, we don't need leg speed and goals right?

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Kent's delivery inside 50 (which was what I said, not a general comment about kicking), particularly in tandem with Hogan, was fantastic. I watched him very closely during his time at Melbourne.

Kent wasn't let go because he was 'inconsistent', I can tell you as a fact that MFC did not offer more than a 1 year deal due to his injury history and because he has a new family he took the security of 3 years at the Saints for their sake.

Staggering that the MFC then turned around and offered an even more injury prone inside mid type that 3 year deal. That has clearly proven to have been a terrible decision, it's not even debatable.

I would have thought your last point undercuts what you said in your OP. They pushed hard to keep VDB and let Kent go. 

1 minute ago, A F said:

I would have thought your last point undercuts what you said in your OP. They pushed hard to keep VDB and let Kent go. 

Not sure I need to repeat myself do I? How well did that decision turn out?

16 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Kent's delivery inside 50 (which was what I said, not a general comment about kicking), particularly in tandem with Hogan, was fantastic. I watched him very closely during his time at Melbourne.

Kent wasn't let go because he was 'inconsistent', I can tell you as a fact that MFC did not offer more than a 1 year deal due to his injury history and because he has a new family he took the security of 3 years at the Saints for their sake.

Staggering that the MFC then turned around and offered an even more injury prone inside mid type that 3 year deal. That has clearly proven to have been a terrible decision, it's not even debatable.

Kent had a nice penetrating long kick when he got the ball in space he could clear a line or kick to space, but he wasn't a good kick in tight confines. Averages 1 goal assist a game, let's not pretend he's Jake Melksham. I think we've replaced Kent adequately with Hunt going forward. Hunt's a little shakier with his kicking but offers more in the air and defensively.

Kent's also out for the season. 3 year deals for Kent or Vanders were both mistakes but we went with the guy who had got healthy and played very well in the run in to finals and is the better overall player.

Hogan - 0.3 goal assists a game and 62.7% disposal efficiency, he's not a good kick at all. Rarely turns and plays on to create space and doesn't trust himself to hit long targets. Watts used to get the ball on 50 and hit up Hogan. Hogan used to get the ball on 50 and pause afraid to give Watts the same service.

We're missing Melksham. We're missing Spargo's best footy last year which was very good. We're missing ANB just being a baseline competent ball user. And we're missing the ability to upgrade the wings. Fritsch and KK were looking great in summer but Bayley's barely had the chance to settle on the wing and KK's out all year.

 

18 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Kent had a nice penetrating long kick when he got the ball in space he could clear a line or kick to space, but he wasn't a good kick in tight confines. Averages 1 goal assist a game, let's not pretend he's Jake Melksham. I think we've replaced Kent adequately with Hunt going forward. Hunt's a little shakier with his kicking but offers more in the air and defensively.

Kent's also out for the season. 3 year deals for Kent or Vanders were both mistakes but we went with the guy who had got healthy and played very well in the run in to finals and is the better overall player.

Hogan - 0.3 goal assists a game and 62.7% disposal efficiency, he's not a good kick at all. Rarely turns and plays on to create space and doesn't trust himself to hit long targets. Watts used to get the ball on 50 and hit up Hogan. Hogan used to get the ball on 50 and pause afraid to give Watts the same service.

We're missing Melksham. We're missing Spargo's best footy last year which was very good. We're missing ANB just being a baseline competent ball user. And we're missing the ability to upgrade the wings. Fritsch and KK were looking great in summer but Bayley's barely had the chance to settle on the wing and KK's out all year.

 

I never said he was as good as Melksham. But the evidence is pretty clear this year about the impact of not having players like Kent, Hogan and formerly Watts able to deliver the ball inside 50 for us. Hunt has done well forward, but that's only if we're talking goals, he is still a poor user of the ball.

Sure, Kent is out for the season now, after 13 games, vandenBerg has played 0 games and you'd be a brave tipster to say he would get back on the park at all.

Kent has averaged 11 games per season, vandenBerg has averaged 6. I'm not sure the facts back up who had more chance of being 'healthy' going forward. Fact is though, we traded out a quick, goal kicking, good user going inside 50, for just another 'hard at it' tackler who is a typical 'Goody Boy'. We don't lack grunt, it was a poor decision. We very much disagree on which player would have been of more use to us this year.

Disposal efficiency is a useless stat, so won't even bother responding to that tbh.

Yes, we are certainly missing Melksham, because we've traded out all our other good decision makers going forward. That's the point.

If we're relying on Spargo, ANB, Fritsch and KK to improve us then I'm afraid we're in a bit of trouble.

Apologies if I've come across a bit blunt with all this, I don't mean to seem like I'm having a crack, we're all a bit grump this year I would think. I've just been passionate about our inside 50 delivery for a few years now and watching it go steadily downhill is incredibly frustrating.

Edited July 16, 20196 yr by Lord Nev

On 7/15/2019 at 5:56 PM, Demon Disciple said:

If you were the recruiting manager with pick #1 in the draft, would you pick Rowell or Anderson first?

Anderson. From what the so called experts say Rowell is the safer pick. Doesn’t have the ceiling of Anderson but almost certain to a very good player. However Anderson would not be a bust. Not  a guarantee to be better than Rowell but has size and ability to play more outside. He’s also a goal kicker. Also a higher ceiling should he reach it.