Player Watch #30: Reece Conca

Remove this Banner Ad

tunksy said:
Lynch is what we needed to be perfectly honest. Hindsight tho. But imagine him with jroo now after years of development. We wouldve won a final with a good 2nd forward.

Guess we thought vickery and Griffiths would amount to something.
Click to expand...
And that is the problem wit RFC.
It took 8 years to figure out Vickery was no good.
Griffiths has been around for 6, and yet we still believe that at some point in his career, that he will become a dominant KPF who can also ruck for 10 minutes a quarter. WON'T HAPPEN!
Players like Conca, Batchelor, Houli, Grigg, Astbury, Hunt, Lambert, and Townsend would not be perservered with at successful clubs, however RFC seem to think that a player will improve after 100 average games. It is a very rare occurrence that players who have been in the system for 5 or more years get better and yet we probably have 6 in our best 22.
 
If, if, if...it sums up Reece and most of our list.
If...Reece stays fit and plays to his undoubted, IMO, ability then we will be a better side.
If...Reece gets injured again and remains a pudding then our depth is depleted.

If...Dion Prestia stays fit and plays to his elite ability then we are looking good.
If...Dion doesn't then we are screwed.

If...Josh Caddy yada, yada, yada.

All the way through the list and the same could be said for every club.
Personally, I hope Reece reaches his best level and stuffs lasagne down the throat of all his critics.

#eci
 
Rfc2016 said:
And that is the problem wit RFC.
It took 8 years to figure out Vickery was no good.
Griffiths has been around for 6, and yet we still believe that at some point in his career, that he will become a dominant KPF who can also ruck for 10 minutes a quarter. WON'T HAPPEN!
Players like Conca, Batchelor, Houli, Grigg, Astbury, Hunt, Lambert, and Townsend would not be perservered with at successful clubs, however RFC seem to think that a player will improve after 100 average games. It is a very rare occurrence that players who have been in the system for 5 or more years get better and yet we probably have 6 in our best 22.
Click to expand...
ov.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Goldust said:
ANOTHER reason why it matters where a bloke is picked in the draft.
Top 10 blokes and first rounders initially get paid more - and all things being equal - have greater scope to improve their salary base through games played and thereafter performance.
So you do expect your first rounder (and the guy you are paying more than your second and third rounders) to produce considerably more.
Click to expand...

Arent all draftees on a standard contract for the first two years?
 
rfctiger74 said:
Arent all draftees on a standard contract for the first two years?
Click to expand...
First rounders get extra I am certain.

According to the players' collective bargaining agreement, which is entering its final year, first-round draftees receive a base of $74,740 in their first season and $3660 a match.

All draftees receive a bonus based on matches played, with $3410 awarded for those who play one to five games, $6820 for six to 10 games, and $10,230 for 11 or more games.

Players taken in the second round of the draft are employed on a base of $67,935, and all other players from the third round down to pre-season selections are on a $64,395 base.
 
Goldust said:
First rounders get extra I am certain.

According to the players' collective bargaining agreement, which is entering its final year, first-round draftees receive a base of $74,740 in their first season and $3660 a match.

All draftees receive a bonus based on matches played, with $3410 awarded for those who play one to five games, $6820 for six to 10 games, and $10,230 for 11 or more games.

Players taken in the second round of the draft are employed on a base of $67,935, and all other players from the third round down to pre-season selections are on a $64,395 base.
Click to expand...

Thanks - $5k aint breaking the cap though ;)
 
Rfc2016 said:
And that is the problem wit RFC.
It took 8 years to figure out Vickery was no good.
Griffiths has been around for 6, and yet we still believe that at some point in his career, that he will become a dominant KPF who can also ruck for 10 minutes a quarter. WON'T HAPPEN!
Players like Conca, Batchelor, Houli, Grigg, Astbury, Hunt, Lambert, and Townsend would not be perservered with at successful clubs, however RFC seem to think that a player will improve after 100 average games. It is a very rare occurrence that players who have been in the system for 5 or more years get better and yet we probably have 6 in our best 22.
Click to expand...


Don't worry Conca will end up with eight seasons to prove no good, but some will get excited about his one great game in June 2018 to convince us al he's worth persisting.
 
Goldust said:
No, but a first rounder presumably has more scope to collect match payments and bonuses.
Click to expand...

Only if they get games. Some take longer to be afl ready even though its assumed they will have more talent in 1-2 years.

Youre making a good point with the wrong argument

If you look at the stats of likelihood to play 200 games, top 10 draftees is pretty good, 60+ is something stupid like 5% (i forget the stats, sorry)

The issue with first round picks ia their scarcity in that they are among the few picks likely to deliver a player. Miss one, its just probability. Miss 2-3 and youre relying more and more on low probability picks to deliver.

Its all about the odds
 
Rfc2016 said:
And that is the problem wit RFC.
It took 8 years to figure out Vickery was no good.
Griffiths has been around for 6, and yet we still believe that at some point in his career, that he will become a dominant KPF who can also ruck for 10 minutes a quarter. WON'T HAPPEN!
Players like Conca, Batchelor, Houli, Grigg, Astbury, Hunt, Lambert, and Townsend would not be perservered with at successful clubs, however RFC seem to think that a player will improve after 100 average games. It is a very rare occurrence that players who have been in the system for 5 or more years get better and yet we probably have 6 in our best 22.
Click to expand...
Jackson and Tuck created that problem!
 
Personally i believe the club did the right thing in giving Conca a 2 year deal on low $$$

I dont believe that he is on $400k far from it , More like $350-$400k over 2 years and is worth this considering the amount of rubbish thats still on the list with no upside. Hunt,Morris,Elton,Townsend at least Conca adds decent midfield depth and if he can get an injury free run is serviceable

Consider this guys, Conca has a decent 2 years and allows some of the younger kids like Cellis,Menadue,Markov,Graham to develop with competition for spots - Could be a possibility that we may get something for him as a FA when he is eligible (tyrone style)

Im just hoping for Reece to have an injury free run at it and if he's still no good then delist
 
Rfc2016 said:
And that is the problem wit RFC.
It took 8 years to figure out Vickery was no good.
Griffiths has been around for 6, and yet we still believe that at some point in his career, that he will become a dominant KPF who can also ruck for 10 minutes a quarter. WON'T HAPPEN!
Players like Conca, Batchelor, Houli, Grigg, Astbury, Hunt, Lambert, and Townsend would not be perservered with at successful clubs, however RFC seem to think that a player will improve after 100 average games. It is a very rare occurrence that players who have been in the system for 5 or more years get better and yet we probably have 6 in our best 22.
Click to expand...
Its easy to have hindsight with drafting. We probably werent looking for a tall as vickery just came of 36 goals from memory.
 
tunksy said:
Its easy to have hindsight with drafting. We probably werent looking for a tall as vickery just came of 36 goals from memory.
Click to expand...
No, Vickery kicked 36 in 2011. In 2010, Astbury and Griff had shown considerable promise in their debut year, but we still should have gone for Lynch. When rebuilding, load up on talls early. We never learn. Not taking Lynch meant we were almost forced to take Elton a year later.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

richoatthedisco said:
No, Vickery kicked 36 in 2011. In 2010, Astbury and Griff had shown considerable promise in their debut year, but we still should have gone for Lynch. When rebuilding, load up on talls early. We never learn. Not taking Lynch meant we were almost forced to take Elton a year later.
Click to expand...
Youre right. Got my years wrong! But hey i did say from memory:p

Yes we still shouldve taken lynch. Or bloody kept astbury forward i dunno. Its all hindsight here.

Or biggest weakness is not having a 2nd quality tall forward to partner jack.
 
tunksy said:
Plenty of first rounders dont end up being excellent or elite tho
Click to expand...
Only a small % reach 200 games including first rounders, but this cohort has the highest success rate even considering these figures. The clubs 'hope' for stars or elites but that doesn't actually happen all the time. Mostly, good players come from this, but not many stars or elites.
 
richoatthedisco said:
We took Knights as a delisted free agent. Someone would have taken Conca if he were free.
Click to expand...

Knights was a free agent, not a delisted free agent. He may have been the first FA of this new system too.

Goldust said:
First rounders get extra I am certain.
They do but being top 10 doesn't.
According to the players' collective bargaining agreement, which is entering its final year, first-round draftees receive a base of $74,740 in their first season and $3660 a match.

All draftees receive a bonus based on matches played, with $3410 awarded for those who play one to five games, $6820 for six to 10 games, and $10,230 for 11 or more games.

Players taken in the second round of the draft are employed on a base of $67,935, and all other players from the third round down to pre-season selections are on a $64,395 base.
Click to expand...
 
Just looking at the 2012 trades and it appears we gave up Gus and 53 for Knights And 42. Pick 42 turned out to be the Doona. This was a nothing for nothing deal,but it just meant we carried a bloke for three seasons on around 250-300k for six games.
Uncertain with this as I only have a photo of some old table. Will check later.
 
theflea said:
Only a small % reach 200 games including first rounders, but this cohort has the highest success rate even considering these figures. The clubs 'hope' for stars or elites but that doesn't actually happen all the time. Mostly, good players come from this, but not many stars or elites.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We need more solid good players. Of which conca can be one. Hell isnt he on 95 games too?
 
TigerImposter said:
Just looking at the 2012 trades and it appears we gave up Gus and 53 for Knights And 42. Pick 42 turned out to be the Doona. This was a nothing for nothing deal,but it just meant we carried a bloke for three seasons on around 250-300k for six games.
Uncertain with this as I only have a photo of some old table. Will check later.
Click to expand...
Knights came as a fa.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch #30: Reece Conca

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top