Analysis Danger + Kerridge VS Milera + Menzel + Gore

[FAITH]

If it's not a final judgment, why have a poll, especially since Danger hasn't even suited up for the Cats yet?

voters can change their vote at anytime

 

[My name geoff]

Bullshit!

Certainly not elite but a very solid B grader, better composure under pressure and far better disposal than Nathan van Berlo for starters, only thing he and Van Berlo have in common is elite endurance and both are very solid citizens as AFL players go.

I understand that it was only NAB cup, but Kerridge was dominant through the middle against the Hawks. His power and hunger for the ball where surprising and I think this is what makes him a completely different prospect to Van Berlo.

 

[Bicks]

I understand that it was only NAB cup, but Kerridge was dominant through the middle against the Hawks. His power and hunger for the ball where surprising and I think this is what makes him a completely different prospect to Van Berlo.

No, the difference is skillset and composure.

Mate you don't need to convince me, Sam CAN play and no-one was more disappointed to see him go than I, and for completely understandable reasons I might add, severely under utilised at the Crows and certainly deserving of more opportunities to show his wares at the AFC.

There's 3 or 4 of our midfield "depth" I'd have traded before Sam, but of course SOS wouldn't have been interested in them for IMO good reason as none offer the same flexibility to play other roles. I can also understand the AFC's keenness to bring Menzel home as he does have big upside and big talent, that as yet hasn't even come close to being realised, time will be the judge as to whether we can get him switched on and playing consistently good football that equates to his talents. If anything I think the AFC is the one taking the risk with Menzel given his past questionable application but it was certainly a calculated risk worth taking.

 

[BrissyCrow]

I think Kerridge will be a very good, consistent player.

I think Menzel will be a good player, who plays great quarters, and the odd great game.

I was disappointed when the club traded Kerridge. I think he will do well at Carlton and there will be many later in the season questioning why we traded him. But we have to move on and I also believe that Menzel will play some strong games for us.

I don't really agree with the thought that we should be trying to figure out if we did better than Carlton. The question should be did we get value for money.

 

[FAITH]

bicks youre seriously over valuing kedg and underselling van berlo.

 

[moses]

People need to realise that we did not trade for here and now. We targeted players for the long term that could possibly play games this year. Menzel will play games for us this year if fitness allows. So will Gore and Milera but for all 3 of these guys, it is about the longer term outcomes.

I think what we did is the classic money ball move. We lost some contested inside ball, some marking, some pace and some goal kicking power with Dangerfield so we basically replaced him with 3 players. Menzel will provide the marking and the goal kicking, Gore the inside contested ball and Milera the break away pace. Interestingly, all 3 are better kicks than Dangerfield but don't quite cover all areas at the level than Dangerfield does.

Bottom line is that this trade should be judged at least 3 years from now. Dangerfield will have an immediate impact on Geelong and will likely win a Brownlow before his career is out. Kerridge will add some much needed grunt to the Blues midfield and will get more opportunities than he would have at the Crows.

For us, I suspect, neither of the 3 will play all the AFL games this year but in 3-4 years time all will likely be in our best 22 and key players for us. It's a bit like Judd to Carlton trade. Carlton was a clear winner early on but in time one could argue that WC might have won the trade overall. I think it will be similar story with us and this trade.

This is a pretty good summary. Agree with the moneyball summary, there is no like for like Dangerfield replacement in the comp, but we can cover off his stats. Given how hard Danger goes at it, I wouldn't be surprised if he slows up considerably in his late 20s, given the battering his body takes week after week.

To put the trade into perspective, we lost Stenglein at his prime to West Coast (for pick 12 and 28) and traded pick 12 for a young Scott Thompson and drafted Chad Gibson for 28 (massive bust). Stenglein retired in 2009 and Thompson is still going strong for us. Can see the same happening for us with this trade tbh.

 

[Pdub]

If we kick at goal with the accuracy we did on the weekend (22goals 11 points 66%), then we will be better off than we were with Dangerfield last year.

last year our goal kicking accuracy was 51.9%, raise that to 60% this year and we will get about an extra 60 goals over the season, keep it at 66% and we will get about an extra 100goals.

 

[Bicks]

bicks youre seriously over valuing kedg and underselling van berlo.

Same answer as last time...bullshit!

 

[1970crow]

bicks youre seriously over valuing kedg and underselling van berlo.

Underselling VB? Not really possible. At least over his last 4 years where he's barely been a certain best 22 player.

 

[FAITH]

i was more comparing vb to kedg at the same age kedg is now.
vb is cooked now obviously.

 

[RippaRiley43]

If you didn't choose the Dangerfield option you probably don't know much about football.

As bad the Davis vs Crouch and Gunston vs Jenkins/Grigg threads.

Not to take this one too far off topic, but interestingly this one is now starting to turn in our favour four years later. Initially it seemed like we were getting a couple of bags of chips for someone blind Freddie could tell would be a gun. I don't like Gunston and his annoying grinning face, but I believe Dangerfield and Tippett left in a worse way.

The trade was Gunston, 53 (Woodward) and 71 (traded to Fremantle) for 24, 46 and 64.

24 - Traded to GC for 27 (Kerridge), 31 and 68.
46 - Joyce (dud, this one hurts a bit as we could have drafted Neale, Sutcliffe or Dickson)
64 - Ellis-Yolmen, who is starting to impress me now. Was worth persisting with.
31 - 41 (Grigg, who could still yet make it) and Jenkins
68 - Traded with 35 (traded to St Kilda, became Daniel Markworth, dud) and Armstrong (dud) for Lewis Johnston (dud).

So essentially we got Jenkins, Grigg, Ellis-Yolmen, half of Menzel and change for a couple of duds in exchange for Gunston, Woodward and a late pick which Fremantle ended up doing pretty well with. Not too bad, although the jury is still out with Grigg and CEY.

 

[RippaRiley43]

As for this one, clearly it's too early to tell, but that's no fun to say. I do maintain that we could and should have gotten more for Dangerfield, ie two first round picks. Wells admitted as much, although we couldn't be bothered pressing for something better it seems, and he might have just been saying that to be smug (wouldn't put it past him if the Geelong flogs on Bigfooty were anything to go by).

I can appreciate likening it to the Judd trade in the principle of a short term gain to one team vs a long term gain to another, but it still wasn't as good for us. Judd (along with 46) got the Eagles Pick 3, Kennedy (a former pick 4) and 20, which is far superior to 11, 28 and Gore (former pick 55). Obviously I understand that Judd is a far more accomplished player however, having won a Brownlow and a flag.

However, even compared to Beams, who I believe isn't as good as Danger, Collingwood got a better first rounder in pick 5 (or 6 if you count Heeney), pick 25 which is better than 28 (which became 33) and Crisp, who had accomplished more than Gore. 2014 was also considered a stronger draft. This is primarily the reason I believe we should have tried to get more from Geelong by making them lose some more quality.

What tips the deal in our favour is that we may well get 10 years of service from Milera (perhaps more, but very early days), Gore (hopefully, early days as well and not as highly rated as Milera) and Menzel (might not be as likely given the state of his knees). In the end, we might get 30 years of service from this trade, while giving up about 6-7 years max from Dangerfield given the way he plays, up to 10 years from Kerridge (unsure, Kedge has question marks as well as much as I like him) and whatever happened to pick 50, which probably adds up to about 20 years maximum. Obviously quality of years is better than quantity, but hopefully we will still be seeing the benefits of this trade long after Dangerfield has retired for those flogs down at Geelong, hopefully in the form of Wayne Milera in his mid 20s dominating for us.

 

[RedvestMan]

This is where Danger screwed us, no one can really begrudge a player wanting to go home. Where it became an issue is when we had no leverage and the campaigner specifically wanted to go to Geelong.

Imagine if we could have selected the Demons, would have led to two top 5 draft picks.

An RFA shouldn't be able to nominate a club of choice as he is still a RFA, only a FA should be able to nominate a club as he has served the minimum time needed to be called a FA that way clubs can get a fair return on investment.

 

[1970crow]

People need to realise that we did not trade for here and now. We targeted players for the long term that could possibly play games this year. Menzel will play games for us this year if fitness allows. So will Gore and Milera but for all 3 of these guys, it is about the longer term outcomes.

I think what we did is the classic money ball move. We lost some contested inside ball, some marking, some pace and some goal kicking power with Dangerfield so we basically replaced him with 3 players. Menzel will provide the marking and the goal kicking, Gore the inside contested ball and Milera the break away pace. Interestingly, all 3 are better kicks than Dangerfield but don't quite cover all areas at the level than Dangerfield does.

Bottom line is that this trade should be judged at least 3 years from now. Dangerfield will have an immediate impact on Geelong and will likely win a Brownlow before his career is out. Kerridge will add some much needed grunt to the Blues midfield and will get more opportunities than he would have at the Crows.

For us, I suspect, neither of the 3 will play all the AFL games this year but in 3-4 years time all will likely be in our best 22 and key players for us. It's a bit like Judd to Carlton trade. Carlton was a clear winner early on but in time one could argue that WC might have won the trade overall. I think it will be similar story with us and this trade.

Not sure it's that simple because to replace Danger with 3 players we also need to replace the output from the 2 others that are replaced. So we're looking at;

Out of best 22 Into best 22
Danger Gore
Mackay Milera
??? Menzel

From my perspective Gore will likely be a long way off of replacing Danger but Milera is a massive improvement on Mackay. Buggered if I know who will come out for Menzel, but I guess long term it will be Betts. So although we probably won't be gaining in the next 2-3 years, it could certainly be a significant gain after that. If it was replacing someone like Cameron in the short term, then I'm not too sure how much of an upgrade that will be.

 

[FAITH]

cornes says someone at the crows thinks milera will be greatest ever crows player.
reminds me of rendell on cyril and how interstate clubs were scared to pick him

 

[billy fragos]

Kerridge is just about the best player at Carlton (ok not that great an achievement) while Dangerfield is a top 5 player in the league.

Milera looks like the second best draftee right now, gore will be a best 22 player by the end of the season while Menzel is proven quality. All three are 21 or under, could all be 200 game players for us.

Still a loss but in the long term a win.

 

[SugarShane]

If we kick at goal with the accuracy we did on the weekend (22goals 11 points 66%), then we will be better off than we were with Dangerfield last year.

last year our goal kicking accuracy was 51.9%, raise that to 60% this year and we will get about an extra 60 goals over the season, keep it at 66% and we will get about an extra 100goals.

Those mathematics don't seem quite right. An extra 5 goals a game?

 

[Sanders]

wouldnt take too much out of nab kedg is always a goer and super fit but he doesnt have the skills to be elite imo similar to van berlo

Totally.

It's a different game than it used to be in the old days. Now it's all about skills, that's why guys like hannerbury & priddis will never amount to much

 

[Pdub]

Those mathematics don't seem quite right. An extra 5 goals a game?

Maybe I did it very quickly. We had about 650 attempts for 332 goals, 650 attempts at 66% would equal 429 goals.
If on the weekend we had of kicked at a 51% accuracy like we did last year, we would have kicked 17 goals 16.

This of course doesn't account for removing the goals that resulted from Dangerfield, but I don't know how many score involvements he had last year, and you could never know how many of those would still be shots at goals if someone else was in his position, by the same measure you don't know how many score chains he might have broken, that someone like Brad Crouch would have created if in the same position.

 

[VSTone]

I'm looking forward to seeing how Dangerfield fits into the cat dynamic friday night... i think he is in the prime of his career and will play a lot of vote catching games, but will this translate to improved team performance for the cats?

 

[Stiffy_18]

I'm looking forward to seeing how Dangerfield fits into the cat dynamic friday night... i think he is in the prime of his career and will play a lot of vote catching games, but will this translate to improved team performance for the cats?

Geelong's best 22 is as good as any in the competition. Their main issue will be the depth. If the injuries strike to key players they could be in for some tougher times than anticipated but if they keep their best team on the park, they will be tough to beat.

Their midfield when healthy is as good as any in the competition and their forward line and defence aren't too shabby either.

 

[Elite Crow]

Geelong's best 22 is as good as any in the competition. Their main issue will be the depth. If the injuries strike to key players they could be in for some tougher times than anticipated but if they keep their best team on the park, they will be tough to beat.

Their midfield when healthy is as good as any in the competition and their forward line and defence aren't too shabby either.

and they have an easy draw

 

[Tex200]

I'm looking forward to seeing how Dangerfield fits into the cat dynamic friday night... i think he is in the prime of his career and will play a lot of vote catching games, but will this translate to improved team performance for the cats?

You won't get much info as Pies have selected half a side as opposed to Geelong who have gone close to full strength - at home

 

[Cap]

can't see how this works - two AFL standard players (1 elite) v 3 players with big upside.

I still believe we did well out of the trade, but it is a medium term improvment rather than Rd 1 2016.

 

[GrommoT]

can't see how this works - two AFL standard players (1 elite) v 3 players with big upside.

I still believe we did well out of the trade, but it is a medium term improvment rather than Rd 1 2016.

immediate success == potential greater success further down the track

Cats were keen to get immediate success (plus their homeboy) and paid with draft picks & player that allowed Crows to secure players that we hope will ultimately give us much greater rewards down the track, so perhaps an even trade looking at it that way.