Review Draft Review

[Scodog10]

You have more faith in the Collingwood medical and fitness staff than me given there recent track record.

To me once he's deemed fit give him another 3 months on the sidelines to be safe.

If he does that knee again you can kiss goodbye any hopes he ever becomes the player deemed worth of our pick 6.

Why chance it on such a big investment when he won't be playing any meaningful role on field with us in 2015 anyway?

Nah I'll stick with my point of view.

I'm clearly with Apex36 on this one and in truth find your opinion quite odd, but nonetheless what are you basing it on (outside of a supposed wretched injury run)?

Also can you please indicate a player in the history of the game that has been treated the same way?

Lastly what were the long term benefits to said fit AFL listed player not playing Aussie Rules football for 3 months?

 

[Laurie Holden]

Your clearly entitled to your opinion, but you should notice that I didn't deal in absolutes for a very specific reason. From there I'd also ask what are you basing your opinion on?

Most evidence indicates that it's rare for a player to reach the top 1% of the competition after suffering a serious 12 month injury in the first 3-5 years of their career. It doesn't mean that Scharanberg can't go on to do great things, but it's the difference between him becoming Guy McKenna/ Corey Enright or Andrew Mackie/ Grant Birchall (and no I don't mean style I mean quality).

On Pendlebury yes. If for instance he sustained a compound fracture to his leg in say 07 history indicates that he wouldn't be the player he is today. He'd still be a good one, but not a 5 time consecutive AA player. Outside of Judd, Ablett and Buddy who are freaks of nature hitting that absolute superstar status is based on continual improvement. These guys realise that they need to work on an area come back 6 months later and add it to their game. Take Heppell as an example (he'll be the next to step into that uber elite group, IMO) he has added elements to his game each year after entering the system. In 2011 he starts as a HB and wins the Rising star, 2012 he moves to a wing, 2013 he starts to run through the middle in an outside role, 2014 he adds an inside element to his game winning AA honours along the way and I bet dollars to donuts that when he comes back in 2015 the aim will be to become Kennedy, Watson and Beams dominant on the inside plus adding scoreboard impact...

Through missing that early period Scharanberg loses that absolute top end scope, IMO, that I saw when he first entered the system. Out of interest run an exercise on the best player at each club and get back to me on how many of them lost 12 months to injury at 21-22 or under?

All told Scharanberg is one of my 3 favourite players, with Broomhead and JT, so prove me wrong and I'm all ears. Unfortunately all you've done above is tell me I'm wrong and then not back it up!!

How much development did Selwood miss in his last year of U/18's?

 

[Buckley is my hero]

With ACL's these days, you come back stronger than ever. Both Brown and Keeffe have both jarred their injured knee on their return and hardly felt anything. The operated knee is often stronger than the good knee, if the operation is done well and we have the best surgeon in Australia. The downside of ACL's is the extreme pain at the time of the injury and the time out to recover, but other injuries to do with the foot and the ankle can take just as much time to recover.

 

[danielnajdek]

Some people are ridiculous. Riding off a player whos only been in the AFL system for a year.

 

[Scodog10]

How much development did Selwood miss in his last year of U/18's?

Most of the season. From memory it was a similar deal to Cockatoo where he played enough games to keep the hype going, but not enough for him to max out his jnr development.

FWIW I'm under no illusions that there's guys out there that buck the trend. I just initially rated Scharanberg a potential top 5-10 player league wide whereas I'm now more inclined to go with top 40-50 with AA quality seasons thrown in. It's the difference between being elite of the competition/ once in a generation by position v elite by position.

 

[Scodog10]

Some people are ridiculous. Riding off a player whos only been in the AFL system for a year.

Who in particular has written him off?

 

[Laurie Holden]

Most of the season. From memory it was a similar deal to Cockatoo where he played enough games to keep the hype going, but not enough for him to max out his jnr development.

FWIW I'm under no illusions that there's guys out there that buck the trend. I just initially rated Scharanberg a potential top 5-10 player league wide whereas I'm now more inclined to go with top 40-50 with AA quality seasons thrown in. It's the difference between being elite of the competition/ once in a generation by position v elite by position.

Makes sense and agree. Hopefully he proves us wrong though!

 

[ace andy]

Your clearly entitled to your opinion, but you should notice that I didn't deal in absolutes for a very specific reason. From there I'd also ask what are you basing your opinion on?

Most evidence indicates that it's rare for a player to reach the top 1% of the competition after suffering a serious 12 month injury in the first 3-5 years of their career. It doesn't mean that Scharanberg can't go on to do great things, but it's the difference between him becoming Guy McKenna/ Corey Enright or Andrew Mackie/ Grant Birchall (and no I don't mean style I mean quality).

On Pendlebury yes. If for instance he sustained a compound fracture to his leg in say 07 history indicates that he wouldn't be the player he is today. He'd still be a good one, but not a 5 time consecutive AA player. Outside of Judd, Ablett and Buddy who are freaks of nature hitting that absolute superstar status is based on continual improvement. These guys realise that they need to work on an area come back 6 months later and add it to their game. Take Heppell as an example (he'll be the next to step into that uber elite group, IMO) he has added elements to his game each year after entering the system. In 2011 he starts as a HB and wins the Rising star, 2012 he moves to a wing, 2013 he starts to run through the middle in an outside role, 2014 he adds an inside element to his game winning AA honours along the way and I bet dollars to donuts that when he comes back in 2015 the aim will be to become Kennedy, Watson and Beams dominant on the inside plus adding scoreboard impact...

Through missing that early period Scharanberg loses that absolute top end scope, IMO, that I saw when he first entered the system. Out of interest run an exercise on the best player at each club and get back to me on how many of them lost 12 months to injury at 21-22 or under?

All told Scharanberg is one of my 3 favourite players, with Broomhead and JT, so prove me wrong and I'm all ears. Unfortunately all you've done above is tell me I'm wrong and then not back it up!!

Well I doubt your stats for a start and I don't find your reasoning proof. Take your 1% of the competition. so the top 5 players. The probability that any 5 players taken in a sample group is going to sustain a season long injury in the first few years is low. That is why you won't find many. Now Im just going to make up random stats to illustrate this.

IF the chance of a serious injury in the first 3-4 years is 5-10% of the players. Then 5-10% of players in the elite 1% should have had a serious injury. Since the top 1% is 5 players. That means you would expect not even ONE player to have had this. Therefore I think you backwards reasoning is faulty

Also On pendlebury. LEts look at it this way. (I can't remember exactly how he tracked but that doesn't matter)

________Not injury_______Serious injury
yr1____plays 10 games____plays 10 games
yr2____ rising star________rising start
yr3____ best 5 in B&F______Knee Injury doesn't play all year
yr4____ ALL AUST_________top ten in B&F
Yr5____ All AUST _________top 5 B&F
yr6____ ALL AUST_________ALL AUST

So Basicaly he is 2 years behind. But at year 5 he is still 23. So he may achieve two less all australians in his career but by the time he is 26 and one of the best players no one cares. He would still be elite.

My point is Pendlebury like Sharenburg are natural footballers. They are not projects that need to be taught everything about the game. It comes naturally to them. Sure they have things to work on but making out missing 1-2 years means that they can never be great I find is silly.

 

[HARKER]

Jealous of essendons picks

You've got Moore and De Goey but you're pining for Langford & Laverde.

I'd have Collingwoods many times over and Maynard may become a favourite very quickly also.

 

[ace andy]

You've got Moore and De Goey but you're pining for Langford & Laverde.

I'd have Collingwoods many times over and Maynard may become a favourite very quickly also.

Grass is always greener on the other side and people want what they can't have.

 

[popin]

You've got Moore and De Goey but you're pining for Langford & Laverde.

I'd have Collingwoods many times over and Maynard may become a favourite very quickly also.

I think harker just posted the best post on here

 

[NT.Thunder]

I think harker just posted the best post on here

But, but, but .........He's a Carlton supporter - I thought our policy disclosure statement says we aren't supposed to acknowledge such events.

 

[popin]

But, but, but .........He's a Carlton supporter - I thought our policy disclosure statement says we aren't supposed to acknowledge such events.

yeh but but better reading that than the other rubbish debate above

 

[HARKER]

But, but, but .........He's a Carlton supporter - I thought our policy disclosure statement says we aren't supposed to acknowledge such events.

Football supporter first and foremost.

Laverde had question marks on him raised by several clubs.
Guess he may have got to where he wanted to and good luck to him but I'd sooner the dedication and leadership of Moore & De Goey.
Maynard was a favourite of mine during the finals and at the end of the day, they're just young men wanting to do good.......nothing to hate about that.

 

[johncitizen]

Two reasonable tweets lately from this moron. Love the TootPies Lol

Ricky Nixon @rickynixon19 · Nov 28
After a thorough assessment of the draft the winners are Coll, Haw & Melb - the ??? StK


Ricky Nixon @rickynixon19 · 18h18 hours ago
Got to luv @swandane funniest and most honest (about his footy) player by a mile #TootPies

 

[NT.Thunder]

Football supporter first and foremost.

Laverde had question marks on him raised by several clubs.
Guess he may have got to where he wanted to and good luck to him but I'd sooner the dedication and leadership of Moore & De Goey.
Maynard was a favourite of mine during the finals and at the end of the day, they're just young men wanting to do good.......nothing to hate about that.

You wait and see the comments that will be posted in here if Laverde does a Bontempelli.

I'm very happy with what we ended up with from Pick 5 through to our new rookie picks. I just would like to see the club take a chance on some real X-Factor which IMO we really don't have. No secret I was a big fan of Cockatoo but also very supportive of Laverde coming to us. De Goey seems like a footballers footballer and we know what we are going to get with him.

One area that I thought we lacked was big hard ....... No! Bodies. We havent been physical around the contest for a few years and often get bullied out of games. This has been addressed very well and I'm looking forward to welcoming back that old fashion shirt front we haven't seen in the B&W for some time.

Injuries aside we are a better club in 2015 and results next season should show that. I'd hope that next year we can either hit a strong group of free agents hard or recruit some X-Factor.

 

[HARKER]

You wait and see the comments that will be posted in here if Laverde does a Bontempelli.

I'm very happy with what we ended up with from Pick 5 through to our new rookie picks. I just would like to see the club take a chance on some real X-Factor which IMO we really don't have. No secret I was a big fan of Cockatoo but also very supportive of Laverde coming to us. De Goey seems like a footballers footballer and we know what we are going to get with him.

One area that I thought we lacked was big hard ....... No! Bodies. We havent been physical around the contest for a few years and often get bullied out of games. This has been addressed very well and I'm looking forward to welcoming back that old fashion shirt front we haven't seen in the B&W for some time.

Injuries aside we are a better club in 2015 and results next season should show that. I'd hope that next year we can either hit a strong group of free agents hard or recruit some X-Factor.

Who cares?

I think we can at times, be too focused on an individual than for the sum of the parts.
I don't know the character of your kids the way you do, but you need to build character and leadership from the bottom up and I saw first hand, the love and respect Moore and De Goey drew from their team-mates. I had heard that wasn't quite the case for Laverde.

Anyway, Collingwood covered some good ground with some good characters. I'd be happy.

 

[PepperFace]

Two reasonable tweets lately from this moron. Love the TootPies Lol

Ricky Nixon @rickynixon19 · Nov 28
After a thorough assessment of the draft the winners are Coll, Haw & Melb - the ??? StK


Ricky Nixon @rickynixon19 · 18h18 hours ago
Got to luv @swandane funniest and most honest (about his footy) player by a mile #TootPies

Toot toot

 

[Scodog10]

Well I doubt your stats for a start and I don't find your reasoning proof. Take your 1% of the competition. so the top 5 players. The probability that any 5 players taken in a sample group is going to sustain a season long injury in the first few years is low. That is why you won't find many. Now Im just going to make up random stats to illustrate this.

IF the chance of a serious injury in the first 3-4 years is 5-10% of the players. Then 5-10% of players in the elite 1% should have had a serious injury. Since the top 1% is 5 players. That means you would expect not even ONE player to have had this. Therefore I think you backwards reasoning is faulty

Also On pendlebury. LEts look at it this way. (I can't remember exactly how he tracked but that doesn't matter)

________Not injury_______Serious injury
yr1____plays 10 games____plays 10 games
yr2____ rising star________rising start
yr3____ best 5 in B&F______Knee Injury doesn't play all year
yr4____ ALL AUST_________top ten in B&F
Yr5____ All AUST _________top 5 B&F
yr6____ ALL AUST_________ALL AUST

So Basicaly he is 2 years behind. But at year 5 he is still 23. So he may achieve two less all australians in his career but by the time he is 26 and one of the best players no one cares. He would still be elite.

My point is Pendlebury like Sharenburg are natural footballers. They are not projects that need to be taught everything about the game. It comes naturally to them. Sure they have things to work on but making out missing 1-2 years means that they can never be great I find is silly.

I was more looking at it from an actual playing perspective as opposed to breaking it down to a mathematical probability. Though at least you put more effort into this post

I'd say that maybe only Matthew Richardson meets the criteria of a player injured early into the establishment phase of his career yet still reach that very top level. Even then I could mount a strong case that he was one of the guys that would have gone onto greatness without the injury. I'd be keen to hear the names of others that have followed similar paths. Koschitzke would be in a similar boat in that he started in a blaze of glory and then was struck down by injury (02) thus limiting the scope of his career.

It might be an interesting element to look into from a sports science perspective, but we're getting to far into guesswork with regards to anything you or I could throw out there today. Hence my very careful avoidance of absolute statements...

I also got your point I think you're just going OTT in relation to mine. I'd probably also add that it would have been a mighty effort for a 21yo old to finish top 10 in the B&F of a Prelim final team the year following a knee reconstruction. A benchmark of 15-20 games may have been more appropriate, IMO. All supposition I guess and I'm kinda over derailing the thread anyway so I'm happy to allow future Schaz to prove me wrong!!

 

[Gone Critical]

I was more looking at it from an actual playing perspective as opposed to breaking it down to a mathematical probability. Though at least you put more effort into this post

I'd say that maybe only Matthew Richardson meets the criteria of a player injured early into the establishment phase of his career yet still reach that very top level. Even then I could mount a strong case that he was one of the guys that would have gone onto greatness without the injury. I'd be keen to hear the names of others that have followed similar paths. Koschitzke would be in a similar boat in that he started in a blaze of glory and then was struck down by injury (02) thus limiting the scope of his career.

It might be an interesting element to look into from a sports science perspective, but we're getting to far into guesswork with regards to anything you or I could throw out there today. Hence my very careful avoidance of absolute statements...

I also got your point I think you're just going OTT in relation to mine. I'd probably also add that it would have been a mighty effort for a 21yo old to finish top 10 in the B&F of a Prelim final team the year following a knee reconstruction. A benchmark of 15-20 games may have been more appropriate, IMO. All supposition I guess and I'm kinda over derailing the thread anyway so I'm happy to allow future Schaz to prove me wrong!!

I agree with your posting here Scodog and I think it is worth repeating that this isn't an attack on Scarenberg or an opinion to say he cant become a very good AFL player.

The question is imponderable for a start. Any individual assessment is a guess because no one knows the level the kid would have got to if injury hadn't intervened. However on 1st principles it makes some sense to assume that missing the best part of 2 1/2 seasons and that attendant development would interfere with the heights a young players career may have reached.

If we look at Aish, and I use him as an example because he was the other option when we took Shaz, and assume he has another good year where he plays most games. This means he now has 40+ senior games under his belt, the development in his games that had come through games and training and the increasing confidence and mental growth he had developed as a result of establishing himself as a senior footballer. If I were to say I didn't believe those 2 years had then lead to Aish being a better player and prospect than he was when he entered the club few would agree with me.

If you accept that to be true then surely you must accept Aish for the time being at least has gone well past Shaz in his development and value as an AFL footballer. Shaz,by not getting that development in his game has fallen relative to all the kids from his year who have since become regular senior AFL players and that includes virtually all of last years top 10.

The other imponderable becomes haw hard is it for Shaz to make up that ground and is it possible to make up the lost ground completely. Again it is wise here not to speak in absolutes but it is hard for me not to believe the time off hasn't had some detrimental effect on Shaz's long term development as a footballer and it is very important as supporters that we understand this and so allow the kid a bit of time to make up what lost development he can. Don't expect too much too soon.

 

[ace andy]

I agree with your posting here Scodog and I think it is worth repeating that this isn't an attack on Scarenberg or an opinion to say he cant become a very good AFL player.

The question is imponderable for a start. Any individual assessment is a guess because no one knows the level the kid would have got to if injury hadn't intervened. However on 1st principles it makes some sense to assume that missing the best part of 2 1/2 seasons and that attendant development would interfere with the heights a young players career may have reached.

If we look at Aish, and I use him as an example because he was the other option when we took Shaz, and assume he has another good year where he plays most games. This means he now has 40+ senior games under his belt, the development in his games that had come through games and training and the increasing confidence and mental growth he had developed as a result of establishing himself as a senior footballer. If I were to say I didn't believe those 2 years had then lead to Aish being a better player and prospect than he was when he entered the club few would agree with me.

If you accept that to be true then surely you must accept Aish for the time being at least has gone well past Shaz in his development and value as an AFL footballer. Shaz,by not getting that development in his game has fallen relative to all the kids from his year who have since become regular senior AFL players and that includes virtually all of last years top 10.

The other imponderable becomes haw hard is it for Shaz to make up that ground and is it possible to make up the lost ground completely. Again it is wise here not to speak in absolutes but it is hard for me not to believe the time off hasn't had some detrimental effect on Shaz's long term development as a footballer and it is very important as supporters that we understand this and so allow the kid a bit of time to make up what lost development he can. Don't expect too much too soon.

Yeah we can never know but it seems like you are suggesting that players improve every year and thus never reach their max. So if Aish plays more years he will be a better player. My point is how do you know that scharenburg or any player might only need 4 years to reach his best while Aish needs 9. Selwood and judd needed hardly any development because they were naturals. Others needed many years like sandilands. Others need time not for development but to just grow up off field.

Of course Aish right now has gone past scharenburg because he has actually shown form at senior level. But Players pretty much always do not show an upward trajectory every year. Players stall and go backwards all the time.

 

[popin]

JUST ROCK OFF AND BE DONE WITH IT ALREADY

 

[Scodog10]

I agree with your posting here Scodog and I think it is worth repeating that this isn't an attack on Scarenberg or an opinion to say he cant become a very good AFL player.

The question is imponderable for a start. Any individual assessment is a guess because no one knows the level the kid would have got to if injury hadn't intervened. However on 1st principles it makes some sense to assume that missing the best part of 2 1/2 seasons and that attendant development would interfere with the heights a young players career may have reached.

If we look at Aish, and I use him as an example because he was the other option when we took Shaz, and assume he has another good year where he plays most games. This means he now has 40+ senior games under his belt, the development in his games that had come through games and training and the increasing confidence and mental growth he had developed as a result of establishing himself as a senior footballer. If I were to say I didn't believe those 2 years had then lead to Aish being a better player and prospect than he was when he entered the club few would agree with me.

If you accept that to be true then surely you must accept Aish for the time being at least has gone well past Shaz in his development and value as an AFL footballer. Shaz,by not getting that development in his game has fallen relative to all the kids from his year who have since become regular senior AFL players and that includes virtually all of last years top 10.

The other imponderable becomes haw hard is it for Shaz to make up that ground and is it possible to make up the lost ground completely. Again it is wise here not to speak in absolutes but it is hard for me not to believe the time off hasn't had some detrimental effect on Shaz's long term development as a footballer and it is very important as supporters that we understand this and so allow the kid a bit of time to make up what lost development he can. Don't expect too much too soon.

That is a close to perfect supposition of my views

 

[Lefthanded]

I agree with your posting here Scodog and I think it is worth repeating that this isn't an attack on Scarenberg or an opinion to say he cant become a very good AFL player.

The question is imponderable for a start. Any individual assessment is a guess because no one knows the level the kid would have got to if injury hadn't intervened. However on 1st principles it makes some sense to assume that missing the best part of 2 1/2 seasons and that attendant development would interfere with the heights a young players career may have reached.

If we look at Aish, and I use him as an example because he was the other option when we took Shaz, and assume he has another good year where he plays most games. This means he now has 40+ senior games under his belt, the development in his games that had come through games and training and the increasing confidence and mental growth he had developed as a result of establishing himself as a senior footballer. If I were to say I didn't believe those 2 years had then lead to Aish being a better player and prospect than he was when he entered the club few would agree with me.

If you accept that to be true then surely you must accept Aish for the time being at least has gone well past Shaz in his development and value as an AFL footballer. Shaz,by not getting that development in his game has fallen relative to all the kids from his year who have since become regular senior AFL players and that includes virtually all of last years top 10.

The other imponderable becomes haw hard is it for Shaz to make up that ground and is it possible to make up the lost ground completely. Again it is wise here not to speak in absolutes but it is hard for me not to believe the time off hasn't had some detrimental effect on Shaz's long term development as a footballer and it is very important as supporters that we understand this and so allow the kid a bit of time to make up what lost development he can. Don't expect too much too soon.

Maybe Shaz will never make the ground up but maybe he doesn't need to. Instead of wanting him to get to where he would have been without injury maybe we all just accept that we compare him to other players with same amount of development time. Maybe having 2 years out injured will mean we get an extra year at end of his career - we will never know.

Not a go at you GC or anyone else, just throwing in my 2 bobs worth.

 

[Gone Critical]

Yeah we can never know but it seems like you are suggesting that players improve every year and thus never reach their max. So if Aish plays more years he will be a better player. My point is how do you know that scharenburg or any player might only need 4 years to reach his best while Aish needs 9. Selwood and judd needed hardly any development because they were naturals. Others needed many years like sandilands. Others need time not for development but to just grow up off field.

Of course Aish right now has gone past scharenburg because he has actually shown form at senior level. But Players pretty much always do not show an upward trajectory every year. Players stall and go backwards all the time.

No I am not saying development is linear and continuous, it clearly isn't. It is more that I believe early development is important and there is a real chance if you lose a significant portion of that development time you may fall well behind your peers and ultimately find it difficult to ever completely recover that ground and get back to the position you would have had if you didn't lose that time.

In short significant loss of early development may irreversibly damage your career.