Isaac Keeler

[Whispering_Jack 31,365]

Isaac Keeler is a promising key forward/ruckman from South Australia who has been considered by some as a potential Luke Jackson replacement. The Adelaide NGA has no problem moving interstate and this week, the Crows decided not to nominate him under the rules -

Why Crows chose against nominating draft prospect under NGA rules

[Deemania since 56 6,807]

Yes, WJ. He impresses me as he has to goods to learn our ways whilst young and merge these with the innovative development of his own game  characteristics. 

[Little Goffy 14,954]

I'm a fan. Obviously only speaking based on various profiles and highlights but if you show me a super-mobile tall who can still stick marks and who has a clean long kick I'll always be interested.

Also a good time to start developing the rucks and ruck-support players of the future, when they can grow under the supervision of basically the two smartest rucks in the game.

[Lord Travis 10,817]

If he’s still available at our pick 37 then he’d be a perfect target to develop long term as either a tall forward or ruck. Think he might fall between our picks on the night though.

[COOLX 209]

He will go much earlier than pick 37 , probably late 20's . I think pick 37 will get bumped out.

[durango 2,024]

He looks good in the highlights but Adelaide has not said they would pick him as a NGA player why? 

[DeeSpencer 26,670]

Adelaide having the most access to him and no interest is a big red flag 

[Lucifers Hero 40,716]

Adelaide's apparent 'lack of interest' could be because:

1) they think he will go in the top 40 so not allowed to match

2) their only draft picks are: 46, 56, and 59 so even if we went after 40 they have limited draft currency to fulfill their draft obligations of 3 draftees/rookie upgrades.

They have a full hand of 2023 picks plus an extra F2 (NM) and F3 (Coll) but may not be willing to use any of them to match a bid after pick 40...are they targetting someone better than Keeler in 2023?

3) On a 'needs' basis they think they have enough forward and ruck options and have other positions in mind for a 'needs' basis pick this year.

They all look like good reasons to me.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Lucifers Hero
Added the word 'not'. Thanks to @Redleg for noticing the omission.

[Redleg 42,147]

40 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Adelaide's apparent 'lack of interest' could be because:

1) they think he will go in the top 40 so allowed to match

2) their only draft picks are: 46, 56, and 59 so even if we went after 40 they have limited draft currency to fulfill their draft obligations of 3 draftees/rookie upgrades.

They have a full hand of 2023 picks plus an extra F2 (NM) and F3 (Coll) but may not be willing to use any of them to match a bid after pick 40...are they targetting someone better than Keeler in 2023?

3) On a 'needs' basis they think they have enough forward and ruck options and have other positions in mind for a 'needs' basis pick this year.

They all look like good reasons to me.

I think you mean "not" allowed to match in point 1.

[dazzledavey36 56,290]

Hard pass for me.

[Lucifers Hero 40,716]

Just looking at a recent 'Knightmare' phantom draft and saw that Adelaide have a F/S, Max Michanney which 'Knightmare' is suggesting a bid at #31.  Adelaide will need points to match that bid and may need to trade out some of its 2023 picks..

So another legit reason for the Crows to not nominate Keeler.

[cantstandyasam 700]

14 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

If he’s still available at our pick 37 then he’d be a perfect target to develop long term as either a tall forward or ruck. Think he might fall between our picks on the night though.

I like Mankara NGA - Ess at 37, or Brayden George if he were to slip that far

[durango 2,024]

7 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Just looking at a recent 'Knightmare' phantom draft and saw that Adelaide have a F/S, Max Michanney which 'Knightmare' is suggesting a bid at #31.  Adelaide will need points to match that bid and may need to trade out some of its 2023 picks..

So another legit reason for the Crows to not nominate Keeler.

Adelaide cannot match any bid upto 40 which is the new rule regarding NGA players, but they can match 41 onwards.

[Lucifers Hero 40,716]

9 minutes ago, durango said:

Adelaide cannot match any bid upto 40 which is the new rule regarding NGA players, but they can match 41 onwards.

I noted that rule for Keeler, an NGA, in my earlier post.

MM is a F/S so can be matched at any pick.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Lucifers Hero

[Axis of Bob 11,944]

I’ve only seen very little of this year’s draftees, but I don’t think I’d pick him with any selection and I would be shocked (given how Melbourne play footy) if he was on our list of potential draftees.

As a big guy he has some good little guy skills …. but that isn’t the role we’d need him to play. We need big guys with good big guy skills, players who compete in the marking contest and compete in the ruck contest. He’s a small player stuck in a big player’s body.

I’m sure someone could take a chance on him …. but it wouldn’t be me. Apparently not Adelaide either.

[Leopold Bloom 406]

On 11/11/2022 at 12:26 PM, Axis of Bob said:

I’ve only seen very little of this year’s draftees, but I don’t think I’d pick him with any selection and I would be shocked (given how Melbourne play footy) if he was on our list of potential draftees.

As a big guy he has some good little guy skills …. but that isn’t the role we’d need him to play. We need big guys with good big guy skills, players who compete in the marking contest and compete in the ruck contest. He’s a small player stuck in a big player’s body.

I’m sure someone could take a chance on him …. but it wouldn’t be me. Apparently not Adelaide either.

If you’ve seen so little of him, it’s interesting that you conclude that he’s a “small player stuck in a big player’s body” and you wouldn’t take a chance on him as an 18 year old to develop his game. He plays for North Adelaide in the SANFL Under 18s and is 198cm 88kg and has played ruck and key forward roles and kicked goals. Why could he not become more imposing than BBB (a late developer) with some gym work and a few pre seasons under his belt?

By comparison, a lot of people around here are salivating over the rangy stick figure key forward Matt Jefferson who is 194cm, 76kg and while he can admittedly take a grab, he doesn’t have much physicality and, at this stage of his career is by no means a strong man?

[Lord Travis 10,817]

On 11/11/2022 at 1:26 PM, Axis of Bob said:

I’ve only seen very little of this year’s draftees, but I don’t think I’d pick him with any selection and I would be shocked (given how Melbourne play footy) if he was on our list of potential draftees.

As a big guy he has some good little guy skills …. but that isn’t the role we’d need him to play. We need big guys with good big guy skills, players who compete in the marking contest and compete in the ruck contest. He’s a small player stuck in a big player’s body.

I’m sure someone could take a chance on him …. but it wouldn’t be me. Apparently not Adelaide either.

One could say you’ve just described Luke Jackson. He’s a big man with small man skills. He’s lauded for agility and ground ball skills for a tall, but ironically his weakness are his big man skills such as marking and using his body in contests.

I haven’t seem enough of Keeler to pass good judgement, but his skill set and output seems fine for his size.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Lord Travis

[DeeZone 10,584]

On 11/11/2022 at 11:06 AM, DeeSpencer said:

Adelaide having the most access to him and no interest is a big red flag 

Maybe trying to put other clubs off. Lol.!!

Edited November 12, 2022 by DeeZone
Spell checker

[Axis of Bob 11,944]

56 minutes ago, Leopold Bloom said:

If you’ve seen so little of him, it’s interesting that you conclude that he’s a “small player stuck in a big player’s body” and you wouldn’t take a chance on him as an 18 year old to develop his game.

I have only seen a few games of his (plus the highlights) so I have some knowledge but certainly not enough to be an expert at all - which is a caveat to the opinions I have on this year’s draft class. This is intended to not try to deceive anyone and also give context to any opinions I have …. those opinions might even be wrong! 😁

Based on those caveats, I gave my opinion from what I’ve seen. 
 

1 hour ago, Leopold Bloom said:

He plays for North Adelaide in the SANFL Under 18s and is 198cm 88kg and has played ruck and key forward roles and kicked goals. Why could he not become more imposing than BBB (a late developer) with some gym work and a few pre seasons under his belt?

By comparison, a lot of people around here are salivating over the rangy stick figure key forward Matt Jefferson who is 194cm, 76kg and while he can admittedly take a grab, he doesn’t have much physicality and, at this stage of his career is by no means a strong man?

It’s not a matter of his body shape, it’s a matter of his competitiveness in the contest. Jefferson is a constant aerial threat and, in aerial contests, very competitive, brave and composed despite his current size. That’s what you want from a big man in our system. I’m not sure Keeler has that willingness to fight in the contest, which is why I wouldn’t draft him. I’d rather draft a player that I thought had some chance of playing a role in our team.
 

24 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

One could say you’ve just described Luke Jackson.

There are a few differences though. Jackson is super competitive around the ball and fights to win the ball or defend. He isn’t currently able to affect aerial contests much but it’s a skill thing rather than a mentality. Also the small man skills are very different ….. Jackson has small man skills the equivalent of a small man, not just ones that are ‘good for a big man’ like Keeler. Jackson also competes in the ruck.

 

But, of course, maybe I’m wrong.

[old55 23,860]

14 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

I have only seen a few games of his (plus the highlights) so I have some knowledge but certainly not enough to be an expert at all - which is a caveat to the opinions I have on this year’s draft class. This is intended to not try to deceive anyone and also give context to any opinions I have …. those opinions might even be wrong! 😁

Based on those caveats, I gave my opinion from what I’ve seen. 
 

It’s not a matter of his body shape, it’s a matter of his competitiveness in the contest. Jefferson is a constant aerial threat and, in aerial contests, very competitive, brave and composed despite his current size. That’s what you want from a big man in our system. I’m not sure Keeler has that willingness to fight in the contest, which is why I wouldn’t draft him. I’d rather draft a player that I thought had some chance of playing a role in our team.
 

There are a few differences though. Jackson is super competitive around the ball and fights to win the ball or defend. He isn’t currently able to affect aerial contests much but it’s a skill thing rather than a mentality. Also the small man skills are very different ….. Jackson has small man skills the equivalent of a small man, not just ones that are ‘good for a big man’ like Keeler. Jackson also competes in the ruck.

 

But, of course, maybe I’m wrong.

But will you "be happy to be wrong"? 😀

[Axis of Bob 11,944]

32 minutes ago, old55 said:

But will you "be happy to be wrong"? 😀

I'll be happy for Isaac Keeler! 😁

[Storma and Wiz 12]

On 11/13/2022 at 10:40 AM, Axis of Bob said:

I'll be happy for Isaac Keeler! 😁

St Kilda will take him (Isaac) with their second pick if he is still available. 

[58er 6,871]

On 11/12/2022 at 6:02 PM, DeeZone said:

Maybe trying to put other clubs off. Lol.!!

On 11/12/2022 at 4:54 PM, Leopold Bloom said:

If you’ve seen so little of him, it’s interesting that you conclude that he’s a “small player stuck in a big player’s body” and you wouldn’t take a chance on him as an 18 year old to develop his game. He plays for North Adelaide in the SANFL Under 18s and is 198cm 88kg and has played ruck and key forward roles and kicked goals. Why could he not become more imposing than BBB (a late developer) with some gym work and a few pre seasons under his belt?

By comparison, a lot of people around here are salivating over the rangy stick figure key forward Matt Jefferson who is 194cm, 76kg and while he can admittedly take a grab, he doesn’t have much physicality and, at this stage of his career is by no means a strong man?

Others have described Jefferson differently so if he's the 2nd best FF in the draft and we can't get Cadman  let's give him a go as we still need support for JVR and our older forwards in the near future. 
Read today's HS and at pick no 14 they say not best player but most needed by the Club at this pick.

Also he had great marking skills and plenty of scope for development. How old is your 76 km Weight  for Matthew.? Quoted now as 84kg! In HS. 

Too many draft experts concentrate on an 18 yo players small shortcomings or perceived faults.

A robust skill base plus competitiveness is a great start to give our coaches to perform their role at the Club. 
I say get Jeffo in work on his ability and potential.  JVR was not and is not yet a finished product but nicely on the way as a remember. 

[58er 6,871]

2 minutes ago, 58er said:

 

Reminder