Opinion Collingwood Almanac 2016

[Knightmare]

So we pick up the less talented and durable brother? Strange decision if that plays out.

It's a money thing.

N.Brown couldn't agree to the dollars we had left after Wells + Mayne signings.

M.Brown appears like a direct replacement if signed (just to less money).

 

[Quicky]

It's a money thing.

N.Brown couldn't agree to the dollars we had left after Wells + Mayne signings.

M.Brown appears like a direct replacement if signed (just to less money).

I understand that. I don't agree with the approach and I'm not sure it's that accurate. If we've allowed the Mayne deal to put that kind of pressure on our cap we're in all sorts of trouble.

 

[DaVe86]

Sounding like Mitch Brown will join the club.

If so... Problem solved and adequate depth achieved.

If this is so then it is pretty terrible to be honest. I understand the cost saving argument...but Mitch Brown is no where near as good as Nathan and has always been more injury prone.

He carries the same skill and talent issues that Nathan has, and isn't as good body to body.

I refuse to believe that Mayne and Wells have put pressure on our salary cap. If so, then it is some bewildering list management since neither of these guys are really the future of the club. They are short term fixes.

I personally can't see why we wouldn't have matched the Nathan Brown offer, and at least forced a trade so that we could get a pick. Even a 3rd round pick would've helped us with points for F/S or rookie elevations etc. To let him walk with no compo at all is staggering. The only thing that I can think of is that there is a rationale here that hasn't come clear yet.

I'm hoping we either have someone else lined up this year....or we are clearing the decks for a massive acquisition next year (ie a Tom Lynch or Nat Fyfe).

I'll always back the club because they know more than me....but on the surface getting Mitch in to replace Nathan is quite odd. I personally would prefer we take someone like Sam Fisher, Tom Lonergan or Joel Patful for a year to add some cover than getting Mitch Brown.

 

[DaVe86]

I understand that. I don't agree with the approach and I'm not sure it's that accurate. If we've allowed the Mayne deal to put that kind of pressure on our cap we're in all sorts of trouble.

I'm with you 100% on this one. I can't possibly see how salary cap could be an issue for us given the guys we have let go or retired this trade period already.

There has to be something more to this that we are not aware of yet. If getting Mitch Brown as backup is our resolution, we have some serious worries.

 

[jdpie]

I'm with you 100% on this one. I can't possibly see how salary cap could be an issue for us given the guys we have let go or retired this trade period already.

There has to be something more to this that we are not aware of yet. If getting Mitch Brown as backup is our resolution, we have some serious worries.

There is no cap stress to the contrary. Wells and Mayne would be front ended to allow us to get to 95%. We should (and would) be looking at this to pay 105% next year and grab a "Marlin".

 

[Saintly Viewed]

There is no cap stress to the contrary. Wells and Mayne would be front ended to allow us to get to 95%. We should (and would) be looking at this to pay 105% next year and grab a "Marlin".

That's all that needs saying

 

[DaVe86]

There is no cap stress to the contrary. Wells and Mayne would be front ended to allow us to get to 95%. We should (and would) be looking at this to pay 105% next year and grab a "Marlin".

But this is my point. Surely we don't have cap stress caused by Mayne and Wells re-signings. So I don't see the point of letting Brown walk for nothing if the plan is to get his less talented brother Mitch as cover. I think we have cap space to do better.

 

[jdpie]

But this is my point. Surely we don't have cap stress caused by Mayne and Wells re-signings. So I don't see the point of letting Brown walk for nothing if the plan is to get his less talented brother Mitch as cover. I think we have cap space to do better.

Maybe they are willing to patch work quilt next year for something at the end of 2017 into the 18 season ? I am willing to give the list management team the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Nathan will always be a Pies hero but in todays game he has become a sea anchor. We need to be bold to move forward and this is the start of that.

 

[DaVe86]

Maybe they are willing to patch work quilt next year for something at the end of 2017 into the 18 season ? I am willing to give the list management team the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Nathan will always be a Pies hero but in todays game he has become a sea anchor. We need to be bold to move forward and this is the start of that.

I think we both ultimately agree. I also am not overly fussed about Brown leaving. I thought he actually cost us games this year, with the Richmond one been the most obvious where he cost us dearly with a few turnovers. He was becoming a liability.

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be an advocate for getting Mitch Brown. In my mind, it would be a huge downgrade from Nathan Brown to Mitch Brown. I'd prefer to even look at some older veterans on the way out like Sam Fisher (who likely won't be offered a new deal) or even try to coax Joel Patful out of retirement. These guys are at least still relevant in today's game, and would fill a void better than Mitch who I just don't think is any good.

You just don't see too many teams totally trade out their bookends and move up the ladder quickly. Look at Hawthorn this year who really suffered with no Lake or Roughead. I think we'll feel some short term pain with this.

 

[jdpie]

I think we both ultimately agree. I also am not overly fussed about Brown leaving. I thought he actually cost us games this year, with the Richmond one been the most obvious where he cost us dearly with a few turnovers. He was becoming a liability.

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be an advocate for getting Mitch Brown. In my mind, it would be a huge downgrade from Nathan Brown to Mitch Brown. I'd prefer to even look at some older veterans on the way out like Sam Fisher (who likely won't be offered a new deal) or even try to coax Joel Patful out of retirement. These guys are at least still relevant in today's game, and would fill a void better than Mitch who I just don't think is any good.

You just don't see too many teams totally trade out their bookends and move up the ladder quickly. Look at Hawthorn this year who really suffered with no Lake or Roughead. I think we'll feel some short term pain with this.

Lucky we have lived through a few seasons without great bookends

 

[Knightmare]

If this is so then it is pretty terrible to be honest. I understand the cost saving argument...but Mitch Brown is no where near as good as Nathan and has always been more injury prone.

He carries the same skill and talent issues that Nathan has, and isn't as good body to body.

I refuse to believe that Mayne and Wells have put pressure on our salary cap. If so, then it is some bewildering list management since neither of these guys are really the future of the club. They are short term fixes.

I personally can't see why we wouldn't have matched the Nathan Brown offer, and at least forced a trade so that we could get a pick. Even a 3rd round pick would've helped us with points for F/S or rookie elevations etc. To let him walk with no compo at all is staggering. The only thing that I can think of is that there is a rationale here that hasn't come clear yet.

I'm hoping we either have someone else lined up this year....or we are clearing the decks for a massive acquisition next year (ie a Tom Lynch or Nat Fyfe).

I'll always back the club because they know more than me....but on the surface getting Mitch in to replace Nathan is quite odd. I personally would prefer we take someone like Sam Fisher, Tom Lonergan or Joel Patful for a year to add some cover than getting Mitch Brown.

I would also have matched any (reasonable) deal for Brown.

We paid too much for both Wells and Mayne, but nonetheless there are other things that could be coming into play.

Perhaps Mitch wants to join Collingwood with his wife joining the Collingwood womens team. And with Mitch to come, two Brown's aren't required, so Nathan perhaps went for more opportunity to St Kilda where they relatively lack in key defenders, rather than just playing in front of his brother at Collingwood and not allowing him a game.

There likely is a bit of that. Or so I'm interpreting, with Mitch given he has not been a best 22 player also coming cheaper.

With Nathan Brown his issue with Collingwood was that the club wouldn't offer him the money he felt he was worth, or so was being reported.

So it's probably a bit of both.

 

[pugsville]

Thoughts on chasing Xavier Richards?

 

[76woodenspooners]

So we pick up the less talented and durable brother? Strange decision if that plays out.

We picked up his partner to play for our netball team, so it wouldn't be so surprising.

I'd imagine the AFL commission would be keen to run their slide rule over that deal

 

[DaVe86]

Thoughts on chasing Xavier Richards?

I disagree with KM from time to time, but one thing he is spot on about is that you should only target key forwards who are top quality.

Realistically, you only need 2 gun key forwards, so both should come with a heavy investment.

Richards is more a 3rd tall granted, but we already invested big money on Mayne, so doubt we are after another lead up forward. Unless we consider him a potential defender

 

[TW Sherrin]

]

I disagree with KM from time to time, but one thing he is spot on about is that you should only target key forwards who are top quality.

Realistically, you only need 2 gun key forwards, so both should come with a heavy investment.

Richards is more a 3rd tall granted, but we already invested big money on Mayne, so doubt we are after another lead up forward. Unless we consider him a potential defender

Richards had been playing defence in the neafl.

 

[Prochard123]

I disagree with KM from time to time, but one thing he is spot on about is that you should only target key forwards who are top quality.

Realistically, you only need 2 gun key forwards, so both should come with a heavy investment.

Richards is more a 3rd tall granted, but we already invested big money on Mayne, so doubt we are after another lead up forward. Unless we consider him a potential defender

Disagree. I'd say you only NEED 1 KPD/KPF. The clubs who have heavily invested in 2 elite KPF often have deficiencies in other areas, such as Adelaide with their midfield with the obvious exception of GWS. This trend will become increasingly apparent with the larger physical demand in players due to the reduction of the interchange cap, and teams with more durable midfielders and can transition efficiently will become kings. Western Bulldogs for instance is a good example of this, albeit not being able to justify this theory single handedly. If you think about it, why do you really need a KPF/KPD? They aren't substantially better than mid/small forwards in terms of goal scoring, and this small margin is compromised by their lack of pressure. The main incentive of having a huge star KPF is for them to hit packs and bring the ball to the deck to allow crumbers. Well, if this is the primary purpose, do you really need 2 key forwards jumping at packs knowing that they might interfere with eachother? In this case, the 2nd key forward's value in contributing to pack marks is substantially lower, and you could easily make the argument that 1 key position forward is the optimal number of talent required, and if thats the case, then only 1 key position defender is required as well.

However, having only 1 KPF comes with the associated risk of not having any KPF temporarily when the player goes to the bench. This is exactly why your Key position players are dropping kilos to allow more mobility, and why Cloke has fallen out of favour.

 

[cleomenes]

Disagree. I'd say you only NEED 1 KPD/KPF. The clubs who have heavily invested in 2 elite KPF often have deficiencies in other areas, such as Adelaide with their midfield with the obvious exception of GWS. This trend will become increasingly apparent with the larger physical demand in players due to the reduction of the interchange cap, and teams with more durable midfielders and can transition efficiently will become kings. Western Bulldogs for instance is a good example of this, albeit not being able to justify this theory single handedly. If you think about it, why do you really need a KPF/KPD? They aren't substantially better than mid/small forwards in terms of goal scoring, and this small margin is compromised by their lack of pressure. The main incentive of having a huge star KPF is for them to hit packs and bring the ball to the deck to allow crumbers. Well, if this is the primary purpose, do you really need 2 key forwards jumping at packs knowing that they might interfere with eachother? In this case, the 2nd key forward's value in contributing to pack marks is substantially lower, and you could easily make the argument that 1 key position forward is the optimal number of talent required, and if thats the case, then only 1 key position defender is required as well.

However, having only 1 KPF comes with the associated risk of not having any KPF temporarily when the player goes to the bench. This is exactly why your Key position players are dropping kilos to allow more mobility, and why Cloke has fallen out of favour.

I don't think it is this simple. A lone key forward will have to deal with constant double teaming, with the defence getting uncontested marks repeatedly as the current umpiring allows players to be shepherded out of marking contests.
On particular days, a combination will work well and look like the tactic of the future. On another day, against another team, that setup will fail dismally. We have to remember that our game has great unpredictability because of the ball shape.
I was not in favour of losing Brown. He is an under rated player in my view. If we get his brother, you have to wonder what the gain is if not money.
Our defence definately looks shakey without the players we have lost or let go.
Our reconstruction in the Bulldogs mode was clearly started before this year. Their finals efforts were a successful application of the tactics that failed for us in the first half of the year. The message is that their players are better at it than ours, and I can understand the effort to get better ones. Unfortunately, we have lost good players in defence, and don't have replacements yet, or at least I can't see them. A lot is riding on Keeffe's shoulders.

 

[Knightmare]

Thoughts on chasing Xavier Richards?

An only adequate forward. Not someone I would target.

Disagree. I'd say you only NEED 1 KPD/KPF. The clubs who have heavily invested in 2 elite KPF often have deficiencies in other areas, such as Adelaide with their midfield with the obvious exception of GWS. This trend will become increasingly apparent with the larger physical demand in players due to the reduction of the interchange cap, and teams with more durable midfielders and can transition efficiently will become kings. Western Bulldogs for instance is a good example of this, albeit not being able to justify this theory single handedly. If you think about it, why do you really need a KPF/KPD? They aren't substantially better than mid/small forwards in terms of goal scoring, and this small margin is compromised by their lack of pressure. The main incentive of having a huge star KPF is for them to hit packs and bring the ball to the deck to allow crumbers. Well, if this is the primary purpose, do you really need 2 key forwards jumping at packs knowing that they might interfere with eachother? In this case, the 2nd key forward's value in contributing to pack marks is substantially lower, and you could easily make the argument that 1 key position forward is the optimal number of talent required, and if thats the case, then only 1 key position defender is required as well.

However, having only 1 KPF comes with the associated risk of not having any KPF temporarily when the player goes to the bench. This is exactly why your Key position players are dropping kilos to allow more mobility, and why Cloke has fallen out of favour.

I wouldn't ever look at a list and think "we can only have one dominant key forward."

GWS will have three in Cameron, Lobb and Patton. And that's with Mumford through the ruck and Davis down back along Tomlinson who can from next season become one of the competitions better key defenders. They're going to win more premierships than Hawthorn have won in the last few seasons with their present group and will dominant home and away seasons on another level.

I overall look at team lists with a view to consistently bettering the clubs best 22 with a view to create a complete team 1-22 with quality at every position and players across the ground who present superior talent by position to their opponents. With that dynamic, depth will naturally grow in the form of youth and things will continue going around and premierships will happen.

GWS will come about as close to that as possible, with Geelong from 2007-2009 about the closest team I've seen to this with that (almost) complete group and the recent Hawthorn group (2012-2015) not far off either.

 

[DaVe86]

Everyone is saying how the Doggies had a smaller forward line yet won the flag.

Remember though that this is a team that is recruiting Travis Cloke, who barely scraped into our best 22 by year's end. They are also getting back Crameri.

So to me, that's a clear indication that they feel they still need another key forward to complete the list. If you look at the Grand Final, they really could have done with a guy like Cloke to keep Grundy honest.

I still think it is definitely preferable to have 2 key forwards. I don't think many teams perform well with 3 keys, but GWS have done alright with this structure this year.

There is no doubt we need to invest heavily in a gun forward and a gun defender in the upcoming draft and trade periods in the next few years.

 

[Unknown Identity]

Hey Knightmare

Have heard we're interested in Brayden Kirk.

What do you know about him?

 

[Knightmare]

Hey Knightmare

Have heard we're interested in Brayden Kirk.

What do you know about him?

Good ball user and finds a lot of the footy. Covers the ground fine. Has only played SANFL U18s (no reserves or league games).

Very outside though. Some games you don't notice him and other games you look at his stats and he'll have eg. 25 disposals but only two contested possessions.

So given the lack of reserves or league games and lack of any contested ball winning. I'm surprised we're interested.

But I guess that's a sign that we're looking for some outside types if we are.

 

[pugsville]

KM - Nick Larkey thoughts late/rookie pick possibility?

 

[SpongePie]

Hi KM,

Bored here... Thought I'd take a look at the list in terms of who we have that were first round picks. It is interesting when people talk about GWS being a team full of first rounders, curious as to how we compared. Of course first round does not mean the player will turn out any good...

Jordan De Goey (Pick 5, 2014)
Darcy Moore (Pick 9, 2014)
James Aish (Pick 7, 2013)
Matthew Scharenberg (Pick 6, 2013)
Brodie Grundy (Pick 18, 2012)
Tim Broomhead (Pick 20, 2012 - yes this was technically first round that year)
WHE (Pick 4, 2011)
Taylor Adams (Pick 4, 2011)
Steele Sidebottom (Pick 11, 2008)
Ben Reid (Pick 8, 2006)
Scott Pendlebury (Pick 5, 2005)
Travis Varcoe (Pick 15, 2005)
Lynden Dunn (Pick 15, 2004)

This feels pretty shallow to me?

 

[Knightmare]

KM - Nick Larkey thoughts late/rookie pick possibility?

Another medicore tall in a year without many great talls.

Averages less than 2 goals per game and has had no more than 5 marks in any game. For a mostly forward who relieves through the ruck I'd want more than that.

Rookie chance given state combine invite, but I'm no fan of average talls.

Hi KM,

Bored here... Thought I'd take a look at the list in terms of who we have that were first round picks. It is interesting when people talk about GWS being a team full of first rounders, curious as to how we compared. Of course first round does not mean the player will turn out any good...

Jordan De Goey (Pick 5, 2014)
Darcy Moore (Pick 9, 2014)
James Aish (Pick 7, 2013)
Matthew Scharenberg (Pick 6, 2013)
Brodie Grundy (Pick 18, 2012)
Tim Broomhead (Pick 20, 2012 - yes this was technically first round that year)
WHE (Pick 4, 2011)
Taylor Adams (Pick 4, 2011)
Steele Sidebottom (Pick 11, 2008)
Ben Reid (Pick 8, 2006)
Scott Pendlebury (Pick 5, 2005)
Travis Varcoe (Pick 15, 2005)
Lynden Dunn (Pick 15, 2004)

This feels pretty shallow to me?

Adams was pick 13.

I'd estimate we have around the average number of first round selections without having the time/energy to go through each team.

In 2010 when we won the flag we probably had less given all the rookie successes on that team.

GWS have the most first round picks with Gold Coast presumably not far behind, though GWS this offseason have dealt a lot of those which means in their situation less depth but their best 22 still is in good shape.

 

[SpongePie]

Another medicore tall in a year without many great talls.

Averages less than 2 goals per game and has had no more than 5 marks in any game. For a mostly forward who relieves through the ruck I'd want more than that.

Rookie chance given state combine invite, but I'm no fan of average talls.



Adams was pick 13.

I'd estimate we have around the average number of first round selections without having the time/energy to go through each team.

In 2010 when we won the flag we probably had less given all the rookie successes on that team.

GWS have the most first round picks with Gold Coast presumably not far behind, though GWS this offseason have dealt a lot of those which means in their situation less depth but their best 22 still is in good shape.

Bad copy paste on Adams