Traded #18 Jacob Konstanty

[sthmelb_dimmies]

And we keep picking them

Correction. We pick new potatoes, and trade out spuds

 

[TheMase]

Not HIS attitude

Haha yeah. It was because Horse just randomly disliked him.

Please.

 

[bedford]

Haha yeah. It was because Horse just randomly disliked him.

Please.

Think what you like mate .

 

[Caj]

Haha yeah. It was because Horse just randomly disliked him.

Please.

Have you ever played in a football club?

 

[bedford]

Have you ever played in a football club?

he has

 

[SeanM]

I felt he should have been given a few senior games even as a sub.

It would be a different experience being a small forward in our senior team compared to the reserves. It could have been a different dynamic having 2-3 small forward linking up with each rather than just Papley at times.

I will be interested to see how he goes at North Melbourne if he does get to play AFL.

 

[TheMase]

Have you ever played in a football club?

Yes as well as coaching and umpiring.

If he would have add value to the senior side he’d have gotten a game.
He was no where near it.

It’s possible that he didn’t put as much effort in as others. Attitude comes in different flavours It’s also possible he just wasn’t very good.

He may have been challenged and not responded. It’s a competitive environment.

 

[caesar88]

On output alone I don't have an issue with us trading Konstanty.

The reason I am very against this trade is because we simply don't have many genuine small forwards on the list, and it's arguably our biggest need, and one of the most important areas of footy in the 2020s.

If nothing else, Konstanty showed he had very good pressure, as he was a strong tackler and had speed to chase and harass (I concur with others that he didn't overly inspire me with ball in hand.) These are also things we are lacking.

Meanwhile we go and give Mitchell another contract when he is a type of player that already occupies about a quarter of our list and we will never ever fit them all in the team.

So frustrating.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I felt he should have been given a few senior games even as a sub.

It would be a different experience being a small forward in our senior team compared to the reserves. It could have been a different dynamic having 2-3 small forward linking up with each rather than just Papley at times.

I will be interested to see how he goes at North Melbourne if he does get to play AFL.

Don't think he earnt a shot but strongly agree with your second para. In his early days Wicks split his time forward and midfield and I think this is worthwhile in VFL (70:30?) because it's often so chaotic.

 

[Kiama Chris]

On output alone I don't have an issue with us trading Konstanty.

The reason I am very against this trade is because we simply don't have many genuine small forwards on the list, and it's arguably our biggest need, and one of the most important areas of footy in the 2020s.

If nothing else, Konstanty showed he had very good pressure, as he was a strong tackler and had speed to chase and harass (I concur with others that he didn't overly inspire me with ball in hand.) These are also things we are lacking.

Meanwhile we go and give Mitchell another contract when he is a type of player that already occupies about a quarter of our list and we will never ever fit them all in the team.

So frustrating.

That's a difficult comparison. Do you give the bloke who gives it 100% the opportunity or the bloke who gives it less? Making assumptions here of course.
It looks to me as if Mitchell is being given a year to reinvent himself as a running halfback (assumption again). If he succeeds we have a handy asset to potentially replace Fox etc. If he fails we have lost SFA and he gets delisted.
If, as has been postulated, Konstanty was giving a fair bit less than 100% why would you reward that? Sends a terrible message, especially after that GF.
I know, the Konstanty stuff is assuming, but I don't think the Mitchell stuff is. Rewarding the right behaviour is rarely the wrong thing to do.

 

[caesar88]

That's a difficult comparison. Do you give the bloke who gives it 100% the opportunity or the bloke who gives it less? Making assumptions here of course.
It looks to me as if Mitchell is being given a year to reinvent himself as a running halfback (assumption again). If he succeeds we have a handy asset to potentially replace Fox etc. If he fails we have lost SFA and he gets delisted.
If, as has been postulated, Konstanty was giving a fair bit less than 100% why would you reward that? Sends a terrible message, especially after that GF.
I know, the Konstanty stuff is assuming, but I don't think the Mitchell stuff is. Rewarding the right behaviour is rarely the wrong thing to do.

I don't believe that there was any difference in what Konstanty and Mitchell were giving. So I suppose that is the first place we deviate in opinion on the topic.

From there it becomes about output and needs. OK Mitchell's probably shown more, but more to leapfrog the 9-10 flanker types in front of him and earn another contract, let alone a senior game? I'm thinking not. Konstanty meanwhile could easily have found himself an option if only 1 or 2 players got injured.

Of course, Mitchell can get a game next year if we decide to add more flankers. But I am absolutely unwavering in my belief that if we do not play one or two LESS outside players in our 22 next year, we will not be winning the flag. So I actually think ideally Mitchell needs to be further away from a senior game next year than he was this year if we want to be a flag hope. (Again, this is nothing against Mitchell. All to do with the type of player he is.)

 

[SeanM]

That's a difficult comparison. Do you give the bloke who gives it 100% the opportunity or the bloke who gives it less? Making assumptions here of course.
It looks to me as if Mitchell is being given a year to reinvent himself as a running halfback (assumption again). If he succeeds we have a handy asset to potentially replace Fox etc. If he fails we have lost SFA and he gets delisted.
If, as has been postulated, Konstanty was giving a fair bit less than 100% why would you reward that? Sends a terrible message, especially after that GF.
I know, the Konstanty stuff is assuming, but I don't think the Mitchell stuff is. Rewarding the right behaviour is rarely the wrong thing to do.

I think if a player is a early draft pick and we feel he has got talent. A few sub appearances in his first two seasons can help his development and allow the club to see how he goes at AFL level.

Also we like to debut young players at half forward. So I feel it would have been easier to do with Konstanty than with a KPD or tall forward.

In general I felt we could have developed our younger players better if we had used the 22nd or 23rd spot to give one of the reserve players experience. Then it gives us a bit more depth in the squad when we had injuries later in the season. And we get to see how they perform at AFL level.

Even someone like Sheldrick, we could have given him 1-2 games to keep him involved. It feels like there is a large group of players that are just frozen out with not much opportunity.

 

[kelpie_X]

Yeah **** off you campaigner Konstanty. Cant fuking standya! Cantstandya!