Player Watch #30: Reece Conca

Remove this Banner Ad

Ancient Tiger said:
Conca has not delivered for a number 6 pick. You can point to injuries, loss of form etc, but as a top 10 pick he is a bust. He has played like a pick 50+ player honestly. I hope he can turn it around this year but I just doubt it. He'll have my support because he is a Richmond player but unless he can turn things around he will end up being a good VFL player and that's about it.
Click to expand...
You're right Conca has delivered what you would like for a pick 6... But to say a 50+ pick you are delusional. You are leeting your expectations get in the way of his actual output. While that output may be modest, there wouldn't be many 50+ picks who averaged just under 20 possessions a game in their first four seasons.

IMO, once a player is drafted, his draft pick should be irrelevant, from there he is just another player on the list. Unfortunately the so called 'cost' of a players selection will always hang over them
 
beer shark said:
To his credit he was working hard yesterday in a drill that got very physical. He copped a ripper of a hit to the mid section that doubled him over, we heard it clearly from the boundary line....big smack!!! ..... but to his credit he pushed on with the drill. Could've easily called for the nurse and rolled over....speaking to him after training he had a positive outlook on the season ahead.
He's wearing yellow and black so I hope this year he takes a big leap.
Click to expand...

True ..... but it's his job to work hard.
But hoping he comes good.
 
Hank Heavenly said:
You're right Conca has delivered what you would like for a pick 6... But to say a 50+ pick you are delusional. You are leeting your expectations get in the way of his actual output. While that output may be modest, there wouldn't be many 50+ picks who averaged just under 20 possessions a game in their first four seasons.

IMO, once a player is drafted, his draft pick should be irrelevant, from there he is just another player on the list. Unfortunately the so called 'cost' of a players selection will always hang over them
Click to expand...

Draft number is always relevant .... because you can't afford to miss on a first rounder. He needs to be excellent to elite. No questions about it.
Your list needs elite talent, you can find solid blokes back at pick 40-80.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Hank Heavenly said:
You constantly bag the club for doing so, so you cant really use it as a positive in an argument as to why other clubs didn't take Conca IMO

However I do agree that his hammies are only half the problem. IMO if he was a delisted free agent, there would have been plenty of interest, however the fact he was still on our list, clubs would have to give something up for him, and I think that would have been the determining factor in there being zero interest.
Click to expand...

I am ok with us taking a punt on Chris Knights, it didn't work out, it cost us nothing. As I am sure Carlton is thinking with Smedts.
But you have to ask the question - even with injuries and what would have been a low salary - no club took a risk on Conca nor even inquired if what we are led to believe is true. So take out injuries and salary and what you have left is his football ability and form. That's what teams judged him on.
Zero interest is zero interest, no matter how you dress it up!
 
Goldust said:
Draft number is always relevant .... because you can't afford to miss on a first rounder. He needs to be excellent to elite. No questions about it.
Your list needs elite talent, you can find solid blokes back at pick 40-80.
Click to expand...
Draft number is relevant, right up until the second it is used, then it is 100% irrelevant.
It's relevance gets you the best access to the best talent in the country, and your right, a top 10 pick should be excellent to elite, agree.

However I have never seen a footballer gain physical benefit on the filed because he was a higher pick, it's not like in a computer game where you upgrade a players abilities... Once they are drafted, their draft position becomes irrelevant. they all start as equals on their first day of training.
 
Goldust said:
I am ok with us taking a punt on Chris Knights, it didn't work out, it cost us nothing. As I am sure Carlton is thinking with Smedts.
But you have to ask the question - even with injuries and what would have been a low salary - no club took a risk on Conca nor even inquired if what we are led to believe is true. So take out injuries and salary and what you have left is his football ability and form. That's what teams judged him on.
Zero interest is zero interest, no matter how you dress it up!
Click to expand...
You cant say take out injuries and salary, because that would be a big part of the decision.

A bloke, who hasn't played much in 2 years on 400k plus we would have to give up a pick/player to bring him in, would be a massive reason why clubs would lose interest.
 
Hank Heavenly said:
Draft number is relevant, right up until the second it is used, then it is 100% irrelevant.
It's relevance gets you the best access to the best talent in the country, and your right, a top 10 pick should be excellent to elite, agree.

However I have never seen a footballer gain physical benefit on the filed because he was a higher pick, it's not like in a computer game where you upgrade a players abilities... Once they are drafted, their draft position becomes irrelevant. they all start as equals on their first day of training.
Click to expand...

So you're comfortable having first rounders like Conca and Lennon play a handful of so-so matches and never amount to nothing ... it doesn't matter?
I bet 18 AFL clubs disagree and expect a higher level of output from their first rounders than they do speculative fourth rounders.
Why is it Hardwick says: "WE trade for need, but draft for stars." That is, I expect my first rounder to be a star. When he's not and he's Conca or Lennon, it's a fail of the standard the clubs sets .. thatis ... "WE draft for stars". It matters.
 
Hank Heavenly said:
You cant say take out injuries and salary, because that would be a big part of the decision.

A bloke, who hasn't played much in 2 years on 400k plus we would have to give up a pick/player to bring him in, would be a massive reason why clubs would lose interest.
Click to expand...

That was your argument. I gave you examples of guys picked up by clubs with obvious injuries and came cheap. Conca had both of these? So why did no one want him. Why did we chase Knights who had injuries? I bet it's because we thought if he could get his body right it would be a win for us (which it was in the few games he played). So why did no one take this risk on Conca? If he was so talented and such a good player, some club would have taken a punt on his hammies, and at a bargain basement price. They didn't!
 
Goldust said:
So you're comfortable having first rounders like Conca and Lennon play a handful of so-so matches and never amount to nothing ... it doesn't matter?
I bet 18 AFL clubs disagree and expect a higher level of output from their first rounders than they do speculative fourth rounders.
Why is it Hardwick says: "WE trade for need, but draft for stars." That is, I expect my first rounder to be a star. When he's not and he's Conca or Lennon, it's a fail of the standard the clubs sets .. thatis ... "WE draft for stars". It matters.
Click to expand...

You see, your confusing my expectations against the argument that was presented.
I never said I was over the moon with what we have got from Conca for pick 6, my expectations are like yours, I would expect to get a top line star at 6, but that hasn't happened.

Where we differ tho now, is your still holding onto expectations that havent been met, and I acknowledge that they haven't been met.
Where as I no longer care what number draft pick Reece was taken (as NO-ONE can change that fact), I prefer to look at what he can offer the team for 2017. Again, is he even in our top 10, probably not, But Reece at his best is better than Hunt, Petterd, Grigg, Lambert, Townsend, plus others who have played over the last few years in say our bottom 6. So if our bottom 6 is better than the past, doesn't that mean we have the ability to become a better team (one thats played finals 3 out of the last 4 years)?

I get you and others are extremely disappointed from what we have got from Reece so far as a pick 6, TBH i doubt that you will find anyone that isn't a little disappointed. But your constant arguing that he is worthless based on him being a pick 6 is rubbish given that he is better than a lot of blokes in this league who where picked 50+ (one someone, granted not you) tried to describe him as.
 
Conca seems to be going well this preseason. Good signs for him for this year. In 2014 that was the year that mattered. In 2017, this is the year that matters. As I just said, Conca seems to be going well this preseason. Good signs for him for this year.
 
Goldust said:
How is it we took a punt on Dion Prestia? Chris Knights back when? The Hawks took a punt on O'Meara? Carlton took on Billy Smedts from Geelong with an injury history.
With respect buddy, Conca's hammies are only part of the equation why no one wanted him.
I hope I am wrong but I'm sure he'll see out his two years without much of a whimper and quietly be seen carving it up in the WAFL Twos in 2019.
Click to expand...
Even concas shown more than billie smedts :p

Omera prestia and even Knights (in his best year) are guns on the field.

Omera and prestia both young top liners. And cost a lot to obtain. Not even apart of this conversation i think.

Knights (best example) cost nothing and was originally laid low with recurring soft tissue injuries. He cost nothing. Which is what we wouldve gotten for conca (hamstring history in a high endurance high intensity game) few clubs would take a punt on that.

The potential upside of conca vs a two year contract for a draftee (a late pick too). Hmm i know what id rather gamble on after getting caddy and prestia. Conca isnt on a heap of money currently. Im glad we have backed our new fitness staff, cos conca is looking very fit currently. Hes put himself in as good a position as he can to make the most of his last chance at an afl career.
 
Goldust said:
How is it we took a punt on Dion Prestia? Chris Knights back when? The Hawks took a punt on O'Meara? Carlton took on Billy Smedts from Geelong with an injury history.
With respect buddy, Conca's hammies are only part of the equation why no one wanted him.
I hope I am wrong but I'm sure he'll see out his two years without much of a whimper and quietly be seen carving it up in the WAFL Twos in 2019.
Click to expand...
We took Knights as a delisted free agent. Someone would have taken Conca if he were free.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I,m really looking foward to players like

Markov,Short,Menadue,Rioli,Shai,Costagna,Drummond,Butler and what they can produce and level they play at with all their speed and agility with be a breath of fresh air to a stale game plan and vanilla players that have been played in the past.

Im also quietly waiting to see if we can get any improvement in under performers that have occupied our list for the last few years in
Conca,B.Ellis,C,Ellis,Lennon,Batchelor,Griffiths & Elton - Any improvement is a bonus and will probably determine the extent of their AFL Careers
 
let's forget where he was drafted and what he has or hasn't done to date....

nominate what position he should play?

I'll nominate 2 players in the same position that should play before him
 
Hank Heavenly said:
You cant say take out injuries and salary, because that would be a big part of the decision.

A bloke, who hasn't played much in 2 years on 400k plus we would have to give up a pick/player to bring him in, would be a massive reason why clubs would lose interest.
Click to expand...
The fact we gave Conca two yrs is mind numbingly stupid. If we gave him two yrs on 400k then that is even more stupid.

He was out of contract and clubs were free to offer him what they would have thought a fair contract.
No one wanted him clubs clearly thought it better to keep their picks than trade for him..
 
mopsy said:
The fact we gave Conca two yrs is mind numbingly stupid. If we gave him two yrs on 400k then that is even more stupid.

He was out of contract and clubs were free to offer him what they would have thought a fair contract.
No one wanted him clubs clearly thought it better to keep their picks than trade for him..
Click to expand...
Nobody knows how much he gets, how would we, Just adds to the hyperbole regarding Conca. So much written about a bloke who is trying to get back on the park and play footy. Yes he got 2 yrs, sign that they might rate him, you and other don't, I do, yes he was a stretch at 6, yes no other club were prepared to gamble on his hamstring, it has been written and debated to death. And until the season starts, non of us know anything really.
 
Grrr said:
Nobody knows how much he gets, how would we, Just adds to the hyperbole regarding Conca. So much written about a bloke who is trying to get back on the park and play footy. Yes he got 2 yrs, sign that they might rate him, you and other don't, I do, yes he was a stretch at 6, yes no other club were prepared to gamble on his hamstring, it has been written and debated to death. And until the season starts, non of us know anything really.
Click to expand...

what position does he play
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch #30: Reece Conca

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top