Mega Thread Delist/Trade/Draft Super-mega-ultrathread

[Miguel Sanchez]

But that is what you should expect from Collingwood, nothing !

Harsh, they gave us LeCras for Chad Morrison

 

[the harry]

Moral of the story: whenever Mitch Brown has played in defence (throughout 2009, late 2010, early 2011, sporadically in 2012), he has played well and has been best 22 quality, and yet people still think he's a liability and "not up to it". Short, selective memories.

While people saying he is totally shit may be going too far, this is going to far the other way.

 

[jaxxon]

What about Walters from Freo? I thought we were keen on him around the time of the draft, and seems to have the attributes we are looking for. Is in and out of the Dockers, so wouldn't cost the earth, and I would back Worsfold and co to get the best out of him.

 

[NSLK]

What about Walters from Freo? I thought we were keen on him around the time of the draft, and seems to have the attributes we are looking for. Is in and out of the Dockers, so wouldn't cost the earth, and I would back Worsfold and co to get the best out of him.

Last year was our year to have a go at him - he's back to form this year and Freo rates him.

 

[WCE_phil]

What about Walters from Freo? I thought we were keen on him around the time of the draft, and seems to have the attributes we are looking for. Is in and out of the Dockers, so wouldn't cost the earth, and I would back Worsfold and co to get the best out of him.

Don't think he'll be going anywhere and not the type of character i'd want around the club.

 

[RhEF JC]

What about Walters from Freo? I thought we were keen on him around the time of the draft, and seems to have the attributes we are looking for. Is in and out of the Dockers, so wouldn't cost the earth, and I would back Worsfold and co to get the best out of him.

The talk pre-draft was that we were interested in him, but the number of times we let him pass on draft day suggests to me that there was nothing in it.

 

[Masto]

The talk pre-draft was that we were interested in him, but the number of times we let him pass on draft day suggests to me that there was nothing in it.

Should have taken him over Jordan Jones, who showed nothing.

 

[reimersworstguy]

p.s. cognilio re-signed til the end of 2015.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

p.s. cognilio re-signed til the end of 2015.

Smart kid.

 

[Belltower]

Should have taken him over Jordan Jones, who showed nothing.

Pretty sure walters went a pick before Jones

 

[pantskyle]

p.s. cognilio re-signed til the end of 2015.

Did not expect that.

 

[BradWCE]

Pretty sure walters went a pick before Jones

Nah, he went the pick after we picked Jones. But if we were to have a look at the drafts and say we should have picked player X over player Y we'd have a long list of mistakes in hindsight.

 

[Belltower]

Nah, he went the pick after we picked Jones. But if we were to have a look at the drafts and say we should have picked player X over player Y we'd have a long list of mistakes in hindsight.

I was thinking of neville jetta (no loss), my mistake

 

[lyall]

Melbourne thought they were being hilariously clever by taking Bennell and Jetta the pick before us. Sure we probably didnt do much better but the way the Melbourne fans went on about it at the time was ridiculous

 

[Belltower]

I actually did want walters at the time but we have dick and newman now and hopefully they can come on next year and give us some crumbing ability around our giants

 

[Ian Dargie]

A Danyle Pearce for some outside run would be nice also.

Which one?

 

[dk mkcjcejfnjern]

read this guys we were interested in him

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/coniglio-resists-eagles-interest/story-e6frf9io-1226462087818

 

[West Coast 06]

Of course we were interested in him! Shame he wants to spend years of his career at the bottom of the ladder though.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Has Ebert improved at Port ?

I think he has improved.

Maybe that improvement was spurred by the factors you mentioned but I think he has definitely gone up a notch. He's a leader at Port. He's the guy who gets them going. At West Coast, he didn't impose himself like that.

As to others you mentioned not stepping up, I have an opinion on this but whats your take - is it a reflection of ability or opportunity ?

You mean Swift and Stevens?

I think it's a reflection of both ability and opportunity. But their opportunities haven't come as regularly because I think they're both limited players. That's not to say that they wouldn't have developed differently if they'd played more games.

But a guy like Gaff come straight in and holds his own because he can run all day. Shuey, although he had a couple of seasons on the list before becoming a regular, clearly had that run-and-carry that made him an asset. Just not sure if Swift and Stevens have that obvious strong suit that gets their foot in the door and then cements a spot. In other words, they're a bit meh.

 

[jaxxon]

You mean Swift and Stevens?

I think it's a reflection of both ability and opportunity. But their opportunities haven't come as regularly because I think they're both limited players. That's not to say that they wouldn't have developed differently if they'd played more games.

But a guy like Gaff come straight in and holds his own because he can run all day. Shuey, although he had a couple of seasons on the list before becoming a regular, clearly had that run-and-carry that made him an asset. Just not sure if Swift and Stevens have that obvious strong suit that gets their foot in the door and then cements a spot. In other words, they're a bit meh.

Gaff didn't really have anyone else infront of him in his position, especially with Embley being out for most of the year, which made it easier for him to get more games earlier (plus Gaff has gone past Embley now anyway. And not saying that they either Swift or Stevens have the talent of Gaff). Swift and Stevens are not only competing with each other for a spot in their natural position, but also Kerr, Priddis, S Selwood, etc. I think they both have more ability than they have shown, but without an extended run it is difficult for them to develop quickly. Both have been subs a number of times, which makes it even harder. And when they do get runs, they are often playing at half forward. Gaff was able to get straight onto the wing.

In short, I think it is slightly more opportunity than ability.

 

[BOND 007]

I think he has improved.

Maybe that improvement was spurred by the factors you mentioned but I think he has definitely gone up a notch. He's a leader at Port. He's the guy who gets them going. At West Coast, he didn't impose himself like that.

You mean Swift and Stevens?

I think it's a reflection of both ability and opportunity. But their opportunities haven't come as regularly because I think they're both limited players. That's not to say that they wouldn't have developed differently if they'd played more games.

But a guy like Gaff come straight in and holds his own because he can run all day. Shuey, although he had a couple of seasons on the list before becoming a regular, clearly had that run-and-carry that made him an asset. Just not sure if Swift and Stevens have that obvious strong suit that gets their foot in the door and then cements a spot. In other words, they're a bit meh.

We'll agree to disagree on Ebert - i think his limitations will always prevent him from being anything more than a B grader who busts his balls in his endeavors. With who WC have as available to play in the centre square, Ebert was never going to add much other than depth.

I do agree with your asessment on both Stevens and Swift - and its why I have queried some drafting choices. Ebert, Swift and Stevens were all ball winners with questionable skills and despite what clubs may say, a 17yr old with poor kicking skills doesnt suddenly become a good kick because he is initiated into the AFL system.

Its why Zaharakis, Redden, Suban, Wright and Hannebery IMO were miles ahead of Swift in 2008 and why Duncan was clearly a miss the next year.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Gaff didn't really have anyone else infront of him in his position, especially with Embley being out for most of the year, which made it easier for him to get more games earlier (plus Gaff has gone past Embley now anyway.

Sure, my point is that he very quickly showed that he was going to be handy. He was AFL-ready because of his elite running ability.

Swift and Stevens are not only competing with each other for a spot in their natural position, but also Kerr, Priddis, S Selwood, etc.

If Stevens and Swift had matched Scooter's trajectory of improvement, we'd be in much better shape.

In short, I think it is slightly more opportunity than ability.

Is our midfield really that stacked, though?

Sure, there's Kerr and Priddis as the senior players but the other spots are taken by youngish guys. It's not like they've shown up in 2005 and found that there's simply no room in a well-established, star-studded midfield. Gaff went past Swift after playing about 10 senior games.

Is Stevens a tagger or a distributor who wins a shitload of his own footy? Can he play anywhere other than engine room? What's Swift? Inside? Outside? Can he shut down an opponent?

I don't want to write these guys off because they're still young enough to become good players but, to date, I don't think they've shown that much. Both in terms of their strong suits that define them as players and in terms of other strings to their bows.

 

[WeSt CoAsT EaGLeS]

Which one?

I presume he is referring to the Port Adelaide one. He is too one-dimensional IMO. Virtually all of his possessions are uncontested and for someone with a mediocre disposal by foot, this isn't good enough. Runs hard all day though, I'll give him that. Rosa, who is a year younger, has him covered. And with Gaff and Sheppard rising through the ranks in the wing department, I don't think Pearce is a necessity.

 

[Ian Dargie]

We'll agree to disagree on Ebert - i think his limitations will always prevent him from being anything more than a B grader who busts his balls in his endeavors. With who WC have as available to play in the centre square, Ebert was never going to add much other than depth.

I don't think we really disagree about how good Ebert could or couldn't be. I don't think he will ever be absolute top-shelf. But he'd be handy, even if only as a B-grader.

He's a big body and, importantly, he can push forward when not in the centre square. That's important. You can't play 7-8 guys who can only play engine room. Because what do they do when they're not in there? Sure, you want your engine room specialists but you want to expand that midfield rotation with guys who, when not required in the engine room, can go forward and do OK. That's the great value of guys like Steve Johnson or Paul Chapman. They can go into the middle but, equally, when Selwood, Bartel and Kelly (or Ling a few years ago) are in there, Johnson and Chapman still have value elsewhere. They don't become dead weight. Ebert isn't anywhere near the quality of Johnson or Chapman but I think the point stands.

If you want that depth, that rotation of 7-8 guys, it's got to include guys who can do other things. Look at our 2006 side. Guys like Stenglein, Embley and Braun - throw Chick in there - weren't one-trick ponies. Admittedly, Embley and Braun didn't spend that much time in the middle but the point is that having runners and mid-sized utilities who could do different things gave us flexibility and made us a more complete side. And Ebert, I think, while maybe not a top-shelf mid, would give us an extra dimension.

I do agree with your asessment on both Stevens and Swift - and its why I have queried some drafting choices. Ebert, Swift and Stevens were all ball winners with questionable skills and despite what clubs may say, a 17yr old with poor kicking skills doesnt suddenly become a good kick because he is initiated into the AFL system.

Its why Zaharakis, Redden, Suban, Wright and Hannebery IMO were miles ahead of Swift in 2008 and why Duncan was clearly a miss the next year.

Lucky we landed Shuey, Selwood and Darling.

Because those picks that got us Ebert, Swift and Stevens haven't yielded much.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I presume he is referring to the Port Adelaide one. He is too one-dimensional IMO.

Sure.

He mentioned "a Danyle Pearce". Is there more than one Danyle Pearce? Like a cluster of them somewhere, and we are going to get one of them. Hence, a Danyle Pearce.

In grammar, that's what we call an indefinite article. Rather than a definite article.

Do you think we will beat a Hawthorn tonight?