Cousins V Judd

[Gunnar Longshanks]

huh??

Well, initially you were disagreeing with those who reckon Judd has played his best footy.

Now, you're just arguing that he can still be a very good player at Carlton.

 

[CoggaRules]

Well, what's the point of it, then?

In the OP, it was mentioned that Judd came cheaper.

All the other points were essentially about which player would give the Tigers more.

The Tigers didn't have to trade for Cousins. That's fine. We know that.

But the fact remains that if you had a choice between Judd and Cousins - setting aside what you'd have to trade or give up to get them - you'd take Judd every time.

What a simplistic view of the world.
How about you add this to your "who would you choose". Who would you choose right after the granny, the eagles lost? Forget about using the current climate when suggesting who would you take. The two dudes are different ages, one is at supposedly prime time, the other closer to retirement. Pull it back a little, to when the older one was in prime time, then you might realise, that there would be boards burning the midnight oil working out who they wanted.

 

[Belnakor]

I reckon this photo has always summed up the Cousins vs Judd. Passion vs No Passion.

 

[tugga]

I reckon this photo has always summed up the Cousins vs Judd. Passion vs No Passion.

I was going to make the same comparison using the same example, but my comp was so slow yesterday, I gave up.
Chris Judd, straight out of the Grant Thomas school of celebrating a premiership (and Judd's one was for real!).

 

[Bradles21]

Well, initially you were disagreeing with those who reckon Judd has played his best footy.

Now, you're just arguing that he can still be a very good player at Carlton.

i do believe he still has more to come, but thats my opinion and i said even if he doesn't reach his peak from 04 season what he still offers is awesome i.e 08 didn't move any goal posts

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

What a simplistic view of the world.
How about you add this to your "who would you choose". Who would you choose right after the granny, the eagles lost? Forget about using the current climate when suggesting who would you take. The two dudes are different ages, one is at supposedly prime time, the other closer to retirement. Pull it back a little, to when the older one was in prime time, then you might realise, that there would be boards burning the midnight oil working out who they wanted.

Huh?

I don't know what you're getting at here?

Who would I have picked at the end of 2005?

How is that relevant?

It would be tight, but I'd probably lean towards the younger player. Cousins and Judd were both great players at the time, but if we could have locked up Judd for life, it would have been a massive domino.

But as I said, that's irrelevant. You got a 30-year-old Cousins. Carlton got a 24-year-old Judd.

Why would you re-frame it as a 2005 question? It's 2008. The circumstances of three years ago have nothing to do with it. Frankly, it suggests you're struggling to make a relevant argument.

You got the player cheaper, but Carlton's acquisition was clearly more valuable. I don't know how you could dispute that.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

i do believe he still has more to come, but thats my opinion and i said even if he doesn't reach his peak from 04 season what he still offers is awesome i.e 08 didn't move any goal posts

Whatever, champ.

You bristled at suggestions that Judd has played his best footy. Now you're just saying that that's not the be-all and end-all - you're happy with how he's going, even if he doesn't match what he delivered at the Eagles.

That's some vintage goalpost-shifting.

You either reject the suggestion that his best footy is behind him, or you don't.

 

[woods_gun]

judd showed last season how good a player he really is... coming into the season at about 70% which didnt allow to him to play his usual fast running football, so he created himself into the best inside player in the league leading most contested possesions and next season with a full pre season under his belt he will get back that fast open style of footy he used to play and combine with his his contested footy ability and only then will you begin debating who the 2nd best player in the AFL is.

 

[CoggaRules]

Huh?

I don't know what you're getting at here?

Who would I have picked at the end of 2005?

How is that relevant?

It would be tight, but I'd probably lean towards the younger player. Cousins and Judd were both great players at the time, but if we could have locked up Judd for life, it would have been a massive domino.

But as I said, that's irrelevant. You got a 30-year-old Cousins. Carlton got a 24-year-old Judd.

Why would you re-frame it as a 2005 question? It's 2008. The circumstances of three years ago have nothing to do with it. Frankly, it suggests you're struggling to make a relevant argument.

You got the player cheaper, but Carlton's acquisition was clearly more valuable. I don't know how you could dispute that.

how do you equate value? I equate it on what a player costs you in overall terms vs what he provides you in overall terms. This is arrived at by weighing up the finacial benefits, the onfield benefits vs the cost to the club to obtain those benefits. As for making bold suggestions without any semblance of facts to go with. Carltank's acquisition was clearly more valuable? How do you arrive at that "clear" fact? when we havent yet seen what Ben can provide the tigers and we haven't yet seen what effect Judd's acquisition by the tankers has had apart from bumping up the membership numbers and helping them to finish as also rans.
i..e you are blowing smoke out of your arse.

 

[Crumden]

how can people say judd played his best footy at west coast he is 25, with no pre-season and an injury plagued year he led the comp in hard ball gets, aa captain best and fairest boost memberships, and many games we won were off him lifting the side.. he did all that injured.. his 25 he has his best footy still to come IMO

Winning the B&F at Carlton usually means you are 2 seasons away from being delisted doesn't it?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

how do you equate value? I equate it on what a player costs you in overall terms vs what he provides you in overall terms.

"More valuable" is different to "better value".

The "more valuable" player is the player who gives you more.

The "better value" player is the player who delivers a better proportionate return on investment.

Your only argument is that Richmond didn't trade for Cousins, hence got a cheaper deal than Carlton. If that's all you want to argue, that's fine. I don't disgaree with that.

But if you're suggesting that getting a 30-year-old Cousins is better than getting a 24-year-old Judd, then I think you're either crazy or stupid.

Carltank's acquisition was clearly more valuable? How do you arrive at that "clear" fact?

Carlton will get more years out of Judd, and managed to get him in his prime.

Are you seriously suggesting that you would prefer to have a 30-year-old Cousins than a 24-year-old Judd?

I can't believe you would be so silly.

If that's what you're arguing, just state it straight up instead of muddying the waters with nonsensical waffle.

i..e you are blowing smoke out of your arse.

Whatever, champ.

Once again, you've just offered up a bunch of garbled, self-serving non-arguments.

That's your trademark.

 

[JSFish]

For what it's worth Gunnar, we aren't all stupid. I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

For what it's worth Gunnar, we aren't all stupid. I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread.

Nice to know.

 

[Top_4_Tiger]

For what it's worth Gunnar, we aren't all stupid. I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread.

Same here.

Althought I think CR is more arguing semantics (we got better value for money, as Cousins, Cotchin, Rance, McMahon are more value than Judd for the same price).

A more relevant question would be a 30yo Cousins + 18yo Cotchin, or a 25yo Judd?

Actually an even better question - and here we go, this will stir a few Blue supporters - if a 25yo Judd is undoubtably worth more than a 30yo Cousins, then does that mean a 25yo Cotchin will be worth far more than a 30yo Judd in the future?

Cotchin and Rance in their prime at 25, plus McMahon at 30, are a far better deal than Judd at 30.

Thank god Carlton got Judd. In the short term AND long term, Richmond have it all over them.

 

[JSFish]

For sure. But Gunnar summed that up pretty well with his first 3 lines of post 86.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

For sure. But Gunnar summed that up pretty well with his first 3 lines of post 86.

And ultimately, of course Richmond got "better value".

They got Cousins for free.

Port Adelaide got "better value" by picking up Danny Meyer for free. Well, maybe not, but you see my point.

If all this thread is about is "we got Cousins for free - sucked in to Carlton, because they had to trade for Judd", then there's nothing to discuss. You got Cousins for free. Case closed.

But some people, as the OP suggests, actually think that Richmond will be better served by the the 30-year-old Cousins than Carlton will be by the 24-year-old Judd.

I disagree with that.

 

[Top_4_Tiger]

Agreed, there is no debate if that's what some people think.


Cousins vs Judd from a value point of view is a landslide Judd victory.

So the only interest is when you include Cotchin/Rance/McMahon (or Masten/Kennedy/Pick 18) to side with Cousins. This eliminates the argument of "value for money" as the same price was paid for both sides of the equation.

The equation from Richmond's point of view is Cousins, Cotchin, Rance and McMahon VS Chris Judd.

Sheer value used to depend on Cotchin's ability to match Judd's contribution off-field, but now that Cousins is with Richmond and he is bringing in the members I'd say this aspect is now evening out.

Should Benny stay clean, the equation is to be judged by on-field contributions over each players career from now on.

I'm fairly confident Richmond's batch will give us more value than what we would have had if we bought Judd.

 

[rotten pie]

Thanx Tiger fans! This thread gave me a great laugh!

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

Thanx Tiger fans! This thread gave me a great laugh!

How could it have when there were no pictures?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The equation from Richmond's point of view is Cousins, Cotchin, Rance and McMahon VS Chris Judd.

Well, not really.

Because getting Cousins had nothing to do with getting Cotchin, Rance and McMahon.

Cousins wasn't part of any package deal.

You could have kept the pick that you traded for McMahon and still got Cousins.

You could have traded pick 2 for an established player and still got Cousins.

I don't understand why you guys need to get one up on Carlton.

Who gives a shit?

You're talking about two separate deals.

Carlton traded big for the best player in the comp while in his prime. You guys picked up a 30-year-old champion, with some risks associated, for nothing.

Carlton will be better served by the player they picked up. You got your player for free. End of discussion.

Stop trying to manufacture scenarios or equations that give you a win over Carlton.

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

I don't understand why you guys need to get one up on Carlton.

Who gives a shit?

Of course you wouldn't understand that, you're not a Richmond supporter, you support a relatively new franchise not a traditional old club. Regardless, we don't give a shit whether the likes of you understand that or not.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Of course you wouldn't understand that, you're not a Richmond supporter, you support a relatively new franchise not a traditional old club. Regardless, we don't give a shit whether the likes of you understand that or not.

I understand you really wanting to beat them whenever you play them.

But this is not a situation where you are in competition with each other.

The Judd deal and your decision to draft Cousins are separate episodes.

You would never have got Judd. Carlton would never have drafted Cousins.

What are you trying to prove by arguing that you "won"?

 

[LOZWILDA]

I didn't want Judd last year. I wanted cotchin who could play for maybe 10 years compared to an injured Judd?? Who is unlikely to achieve anything like he has done again?? And now we have Ben for next to nothing. THANKTOU VERY MUCH! Go TIGERS!!!!!
Bring on round 1.

 

[encino_]

The difference that is relevant here is that Judd wanted to play for Carlton, when he was being chased by everyone, including Richmond.
Benny would just play for anyone, if it came to a choice between a few would he really have picked Richmond?

 

[Bee Vee]

Yeah, but there is a difference dude. The tankers had to bend over and spread their cheeks to "lure" Judd, i.e. on his terms. We on the other hand have Ben on our terms. Like TW suggested, we have given Ben the opportunity to play AFL footy with our last spot on the list, he will be just another player who has to forge his way into the line up, as opposed to Judd who the tankers have to play because if he doesnt then they are just another run of the mill team. Dont forget, the tankers rose up the ladder on the back of Judd's inclusion, we rose up the ladder on the back of our youngsters. Now we add Ben to that.

Yeah, your best player for the year (Richo) is just out of nappys.
Add in your other topliners in Brown, Simmonds, Bowden etc and its nearly a creche!

Yet Carltons All Australians (Judd, Fevola) are all of 24 and 27! Geez we've been ripped off, haven't we?

Next.