Sam Weideman re-signs until 2023

[Pates 9,660]

Strange as it sounds if he were willing to sign low, and have his contract heavily weighted on performance I wouldn't be against offering him a 2-3 year contract. Only to look at it as the fact that he has age on his side and his value right now must be low. I'm sure he could probably get better coin at other clubs but if he sees that we are going to be challenging and he thinks he has what it takes then back himself to get better and earn a place in the team.

This match was one of the worst performances I've seen from a Dees player, BUT a certain Spargypants also had an absolute shocker against West Coast and many people on here said he should never pull on a Dees guernsey again. 

Write players off at your peril.

[rpfc 28,384]

9 minutes ago, Pates said:

 

Write players off at your peril.

Make selection about list management strategy at your peril.

This is not a rebuttal to your point but ‘selection integrity’ will be important in the next few years as we have a team that should be in the 8 at all stages and I am certain that W is playing as a way of convincing him to stay by saying - we have a spot for you and we rate you. I think it becomes untenable with another few weeks of him playing like this.

[Pates 9,660]

4 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Make selection about list management strategy at your peril.

This is not a rebuttal to your point but ‘selection integrity’ will be important in the next few years as we have a team that should be in the 8 at all stages and I am certain that W is playing as a way of convincing him to stay by saying - we have a spot for you and we rate you. I think it becomes untenable with another few weeks of him playing like this.

Oh absolutely, and to clarify just because I'd be ok with him getting a 2 year contract doesn't mean I think he should keep his spot. I think the FD has mostly got our selections right this year but it was interesting listening to the DeeBrief where they spoke about forward line mix and I am starting to wonder whether the best mix is to have one of BBB or Weid in the team at all. Both have been extremely disappointing this season (albeit with interrupted pre-seasons). Sam should not (nor do I expect him to) keep his spot.

[rpfc 28,384]

12 minutes ago, Pates said:

Oh absolutely, and to clarify just because I'd be ok with him getting a 2 year contract doesn't mean I think he should keep his spot. I think the FD has mostly got our selections right this year but it was interesting listening to the DeeBrief where they spoke about forward line mix and I am starting to wonder whether the best mix is to have one of BBB or Weid in the team at all. Both have been extremely disappointing this season (albeit with interrupted pre-seasons). Sam should not (nor do I expect him to) keep his spot.

The Pod Bros on the Deebrief have been low on BBB and demanded Weed and now that Weed is not in form, they argue to not have a second tall at all! It’s laughable, they say ‘BB is not the answer’ based on nothing but their own biases and medical opinion. 

I really don’t think we can go anywhere in September with Fritsch as the second tall. Teams plan for him and run off him as if he were a cumbersome 6’6 yet if he were to be targeted like he was 6’6 in a final - we would be cooked.

[Sydee 4,412]

22 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Some key metrics (averages) to compare B Brown's three game stint against Weideman's five game stint:

• Disposals: B Brown 8.3, Weideman 8.0
• Marks: B Brown 3.3, Weideman 3.2
• Contested marks: B Brown 1.0, Weideman 1.0
• Goals: B Brown 1.7, Weideman 0.6
• Shots on goal: B Brown 3.0, Weideman 2.0
• Goal accuracy: B Brown 55.6%, Weideman, 30%
• Score involvements: B Brown 4.3, Weideman 3.2
• Goal assists: B Brown 0.3, Weideman 0.4
• Tackles: B Brown 0.7, Weideman 1.8
• Tackles inside 50: B Brown 0.7, Weideman 0.4
• Pressure acts: B Brown 5.3, Weideman 6.2
• Forward half pressure acts: B Brown 4.3, Weideman 3.4 

Bear in mind B Brown's games were against North, Sydney and Carlton, whereas Weideman's games have been against Carlton, Adelaide, Bulldogs, Brisbane and Collingwood.

IMO, the stats show that Weideman does more defensively but that's generally further up the ground (his pressure acts and tackles are higher than Brown's but not in the forward half or inside 50). Otherwise on all other metrics Brown did more in his time in the seniors than Weid has, and the critical one is that Brown's good for an entire goal a game more than Weid.

However, neither group of numbers sets the world on fire.

Both pathetic if you ask me 

Neither deserve a game on those stats 

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,721]

I remember watching him v the Kangas VFL side and I'm fairly sure I posted about the way he was playing from behind, rather than leading at the ball.

Now he is playing at a much higher level and that type of play just doesn't work. He needs to work on his running and leading patterns and work hard to get space on his opponent.

[jnrmac 20,058]

34 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

I remember watching him v the Kangas VFL side and I'm fairly sure I posted about the way he was playing from behind, rather than leading at the ball.

Now he is playing at a much higher level and that type of play just doesn't work. He needs to work on his running and leading patterns and work hard to get space on his opponent.

Yes, it would seem that he looks best when leading into space. Surprising that he wants to body with defenders - that clearly isn't working.

And at worst him leading into space splits the defence and opens the fwd line.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

They were blocking our leads with a player in space and none of our forwards could get a run at it. Nonetheless. It was extremely irritating to see their two NQR makeshift KPFs running around getting their mitts on it seemingly at will.

[Deemania since 56 6,634]

On 6/15/2021 at 6:40 AM, FarNorthernD said:

Time for the Weid Hail Mary. Chuck him down back in the VFL and see if he can have a Liam Jones/Darcy Moore transformation 

In his sixth year of ever-improvement expectations, why bother?

[old dee 23,787]

15 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

In his sixth year of ever-improvement expectations, why bother?

You have my vote.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

12 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

In his sixth year of ever-improvement expectations, why bother?

Everyone's been saying for years, but what about Hawkins? He took a long time to come good. He was useless and then one day a switch was thrown and he was a star. But Hawkins is actually the exception. And even he didn't hang around like a shag on a rock until something suddenly clicked. He put in his good days and good quarters. Look at the forwards at other clubs. Himmelberg, King x 2, ThilThorpe, McKay ... everyone's showing what they've got in various doses. Sam has gone backwards to where we're playing one short. He is never going to click. Unfortunate, but the experiment is over.

[Fritta and Turner 4,403]

Rival clubs circling?  If I had a club I would be circling too.  If it was up to Demons supporters goodwill he would be kicking 5 a game.  I want him to do well  but.......

[Willmoy1947 4,085]

Can someone name me the last time they saw Weideman have an unimpeded run on a lead to take a mark where there have not been half a dozen opposition players either heading straight at him from all sides or the kick is not where it should be??

[Lord Nev 13,512]

Some overreactions going on about Weid IMO.

Partly because he's been the new whipping boy since the start of the year, partly because footy forums/social media tend to make everyone make things black and white, but also because we had a poor loss and everyone looks for a singular blame point.

Apparently, despite being smashed in disposals, tackles, marks, hitouts, clearances, and having horrendous ball use, that's all on Weid. He was poor, no doubt, likely to be dropped now for at least a few weeks, but the hysteria about him seems over the top.

Reminds me of the 'Is Goodwin the right guy' thread where it's up and down based on that week's performance.

Weid will become just a good average serviceable player I reckon. The sooner MFC fans reconcile that and then manage to look more broadly at the circumstances, some of his own making, around his performances; the more reasonable the discussion will (hopefully) become.

[loges 6,767]

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Everyone's been saying for years, but what about Hawkins? He took a long time to come good. He was useless and then one day a switch was thrown and he was a star. But Hawkins is actually the exception. And even he didn't hang around like a shag on a rock until something suddenly clicked. He put in his good days and good quarters. Look at the forwards at other clubs. Himmelberg, King x 2, ThilThorpe, McKay ... everyone's showing what they've got in various doses. Sam has gone backwards to where we're playing one short. He is never going to click. Unfortunate, but the experiment is over.

Absolutely spot on. One incident summed him up for me, second quarter we were coming out of defence, he had a mismatch on the wing with a much shorter opponent. the kicker sat it on his opponents head, he had the run and jump while the Pies player had to sit under the ball. Up he went leapt beautifully got both hands on the ball................and dropped it.

[Red But Mostly Blue 4,547]

24 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Some overreactions going on about Weid IMO.

Partly because he's been the new whipping boy since the start of the year, partly because footy forums/social media tend to make everyone make things black and white, but also because we had a poor loss and everyone looks for a singular blame point.

Apparently, despite being smashed in disposals, tackles, marks, hitouts, clearances, and having horrendous ball use, that's all on Weid. He was poor, no doubt, likely to be dropped now for at least a few weeks, but the hysteria about him seems over the top.

Reminds me of the 'Is Goodwin the right guy' thread where it's up and down based on that week's performance.

Weid will become just a good average serviceable player I reckon. The sooner MFC fans reconcile that and then manage to look more broadly at the circumstances, some of his own making, around his performances; the more reasonable the discussion will (hopefully) become.

I agree with this.

I'm probably in the minority, I think Weid possesses some real talent (leads up well, good set of hands, decent kick - when 'on'), but the chatter about him now almost has a self-fulfilling prophecy feel to it. It's like he's been reading these threads about his lack of contribution, and he's doubled down on that the following week!

Much like Jack Watts back in the day, Weid has had almost messianic expectations since Hogan left and TMac went off the boil. He's talented, yes, but we really just need to let him develop (a few weeks here and there won't cut it). Had TMac not re-emerged in the emphatic manner that he has, and/or we did not recruit Brown, I reckon Weid would have played better. 

But in saying all of this, I get it, we've been playing a man down for a good month+ and his position is not an inconspicuous one.

I also suspect he'll be dropped, and it's probably for the best as there will be calls for his blood if he does not perform against the Bombers, and that's not a game we can afford to lose in the run home. It's time for a reset for him as well, get his confidence up (even though he supposedly came in off the back of some blistering performances), and actually address the reasons he hasn't clicked, and develop a plan for his return.

[Rab D Nesbitt 8,367]

It might be time to change the title of this thread to Rival Clubs Running Rings around Weideman. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Weid will become just a good average serviceable player I reckon.

1. do we want good average serviceable players (esp KPF) when at long last, it appears we've got a shot at a flag?

2. how long before he emerges from his chrysalis as this vaunted good average serviceable player? 1 year, 2 years?

3. do we want to make a habit of keeping players on our list for 6 or more years, so that they can slowly and steadily develop into good average serviceable players?

[Pates 9,660]

25 minutes ago, RedButMostlyBlue said:

I agree with this.

I'm probably in the minority, I think Weid possesses some real talent (leads up well, good set of hands, decent kick - when 'on'), but the chatter about him now almost has a self-fulfilling prophecy feel to it. It's like he's been reading these threads about his lack of contribution, and he's doubled down on that the following week!

Much like Jack Watts back in the day, Weid has had almost messianic expectations since Hogan left and TMac went off the boil. He's talented, yes, but we really just need to let him develop (a few weeks here and there won't cut it). Had TMac not re-emerged in the emphatic manner that he has, and/or we did not recruit Brown, I reckon Weid would have played better. 

But in saying all of this, I get it, we've been playing a man down for a good month+ and his position is not an inconspicuous one.

I also suspect he'll be dropped, and it's probably for the best as there will be calls for his blood if he does not perform against the Bombers, and that's not a game we can afford to lose in the run home. It's time for a reset for him as well, get his confidence up (even though he supposedly came in off the back of some blistering performances), and actually address the reasons he hasn't clicked, and develop a plan for his return.

This is what is frustrating fans I think. We feel like we’re pulling out all the excuses that we used to for Watts. But Jack showed 10x more than what Sam has in his first 50 games. Clubs and supporters need to have patience but at some stage the patience has to be rewarded. 

@Lord Nev made the point that other statistics were down such as tackling, efficiency etc, and that is very fair, but what got me to the point that Sam has to be dropped is that there was almost no competing in aerial contests. That is a non-negotiable as a tall forward, he wasn’t alone in his poor efforts but he was the worst. 

What’s interesting is that we have recruited BBB over the off-season as someone who is clearly a lead up forward, and Sam also seems to be best as a lead up forward. So why then do our players continue to just look for where the pack is forming and go straight towards it? Spargo and Melksham are the only two players that will regularly look to put the ball into space to force the forwards to lead at. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, Mazer Rackham said:

1. do we want good average serviceable players (esp KPF) when at long last, it appears we've got a shot at a flag?

2. how long before he emerges from his chrysalis as this vaunted good average serviceable player? 1 year, 2 years?

3. do we want to make a habit of keeping players on our list for 6 or more years, so that they can slowly and steadily develop into good average serviceable players?

1. For mine, premierships are built on good average players who play a role. Players like ANB, Spargo, Tomlinson, Hunt etc have been important to our performance so far.

2. Recency bias is affecting a lot of opinions IMO. Weid finished top 10 in the Bluey last year. Has been making progress, albeit interrupted by poorly timed injuries, with his last few games being a poor showing.

3. Gawn was on our list longer than 6 years before showing any kind of consistently decent form. Patience can pay off sometimes.

Just think there's a fair bit of room between the 'spud or star' mentality of footy forums and that's where Weid will end up sitting.

 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

14 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 

All fair points. My opinion: Weed is going backwards and at some point we have to accept he's not going to make it.

 

* although Gawn developed into something a lot more than a good average serviceable player.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Mazer Rackham

[Lord Nev 13,512]

2 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

All fair points. My opinion: Weed is going backwards and at some point we have to accept he's not going to make it.

Fair enough. I think the only thing we differ on is the time frame and conclusion. I agree he's gone backwards, but I think it's only been over the last month and I believe he can turn that around to become a solid player over the journey.

[Red But Mostly Blue 4,547]

42 minutes ago, Pates said:

This is what is frustrating fans I think. We feel like we’re pulling out all the excuses that we used to for Watts. But Jack showed 10x more than what Sam has in his first 50 games. Clubs and supporters need to have patience but at some stage the patience has to be rewarded. 

@Lord Nev made the point that other statistics were down such as tackling, efficiency etc, and that is very fair, but what got me to the point that Sam has to be dropped is that there was almost no competing in aerial contests. That is a non-negotiable as a tall forward, he wasn’t alone in his poor efforts but he was the worst. 

What’s interesting is that we have recruited BBB over the off-season as someone who is clearly a lead up forward, and Sam also seems to be best as a lead up forward. So why then do our players continue to just look for where the pack is forming and go straight towards it? Spargo and Melksham are the only two players that will regularly look to put the ball into space to force the forwards to lead at. 

Yeah aerial contest is definitely a non-negotiable. I often wonder why we kick to packs when we have someone like him in the team. It's why I think Melksham has value. He doesn't gather big stats or get in an under packs, but he has great vision and will kick into space for a lead. Weideman probably plays better with people like Melsham and Spargo having a good day. Or the delivery in general being better.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

I’d like to see Weideman playing at CHB  for Casey.

He might develop some confidence in his marking there. 
He might  also learn a bit about when and where to lead , if he plays on a lead-up forward.

Though BBB put in a shocker in his last game for Casey, and hasn’t had a chance to regain form, he couldn’t do worse than SW did against Collingwood.

 

[leave it to deever 17,511]

Good.