DT Forwards 2010

[Lakey91]

True Lakey, but we were talking about improvement up the ladder which results in higher DT scoring (hawks in 08 and saints in 09).

Far call, im just saying that teams that improve have improving players. Just because they improve with 12th>9th, players will still improve - though i get what you mean with top teams being top DTers etc etc etc.

And i would argue that Melbourne didn't improve from 2008 to 2009 are they any closer to a premiership?

Did you even watch melbourne player this year?????

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Melbourne updated their tank. Newer, higher quality, more features, better interior, and potentially greater firepower. It just hasn't been on the frontline yet.

 

[chadleverington]

Did you even watch melbourne player this year?????

Almost every week, depends how you define improvement i guess.

Every team is 1 year closer to a premiership.

except the team that wins it and except for the bulldogs, cause they never look like winning one

 

[Ausyid]

Almost every week, depends how you define improvement i guess.

Give me your definition for improvement because I'm sure that most people go by a pretty universal one.

In 2008 our list was a lot older, our team was a lot less fit, all our losses were big losses, and we didn't have half as many promising youngster.

In 2009 Davey took a step up to what would be an elite level if he was playing in a quality side. Sylvia finally found consistency and had one hell of a season when he was on the park. Our defence started taking shape. Jurrah was discovered.

Massive improvement in many youngsters especially Grimes, Frawley, Bate and Petterd.

Our improvement was through the roof.

Your turn to tell me how Melbourne didn't improve?

except the team that wins it and except for the bulldogs, cause they never look like winning one

Who looks like winning one more at the moment? The Bulldogs or Port?

 

[chadleverington]

Give me your definition for improvement because I'm sure that most people go by a pretty universal one.

Genuine steps towards a premiership.

In 2008 our list was a lot older, our team was a lot less fit, all our losses were big losses, and we didn't have half as many promising youngster.

In 2009 Davey took a step up to what would be an elite level if he was playing in a quality side. Sylvia finally found consistency and had one hell of a season when he was on the park. Our defence started taking shape. Jurrah was discovered.

Massive improvement in many youngsters especially Grimes, Frawley, Bate and Petterd.

Our improvement was through the roof.

Your turn to tell me how Melbourne didn't improve?

You progressed from 16th to 16th Still won less than 5 games (which is great, tanking gets picks). Improvement isn't just about having promising youngsters, it is developing them into elite players. Absolutely some players have stepped up and there was improvement in the team, but you still couldn't win 5 games and I'm not sure it was genuine improvement that will get you to a flag anytime soon?

Who looks like winning one more at the moment? The Bulldogs or Port?

Port do We have won one in the past 30 years hehe.

(p.s. we are getting a little off topic of DT forwards now

 

[Ausyid]

Wow....just wow. Taking a moment to think about how to approach this level headedly.....alright, I'm ready.

Genuine steps towards a premiership.

Do you not realise that that is exactly what we have done?? When you're sitting bottom of the ladder, without much hope, and playing horrific football like we were in 2008, a genuine step to towards the premiership does not have to be an immediate rise up the ladder. We have taken massive steps in 2009.

You progressed from 16th to 16th Still won less than 5 games (which is great, tanking gets picks). Improvement isn't just about having promising youngsters, it is developing them into elite players. Absolutely some players have stepped up and there was improvement in the team, but you still couldn't win 5 games and I'm not sure it was genuine improvement that will get you to a flag anytime soon?

I know that for primary schoolers when they have their discussion on who supports a better footy team, it generally revolves around who finished higher on the ladder. I'm looking for slightly more intellectual discussion here mate. How can you possibly say that just because we finished 16th again meant we didn't improve? That is seriously a primary school statement.

We didn't win five games for two reasons:

1. We are improving rapidly but still have a fair way to go.
2. It was not in our best interests to win five games.

We tanked. All Melbourne supporters know it. Winning less than 5 games was one of the best things that could have happened for our future. Pick 1 and 2 will go a long long long long way to getting us closer to a premiership.

Despite all of that, we were a much better team in 09 than we were in 08. We had lots of promising youngster in 08, now we have even more promising youngster who have already begun showing that they are solid AFL players, and have begun taking the steps towards possibly becoming elite. There's substance there, not just promise. I know there are plenty of question marks over this when you look at our recent history of developing players (Brock Mclean stands out as a good player who should be elite but never developed that way). However when I was speaking about Grimes, Petterd, Bate, Jurrah and Frawley, just to name a few, I was speaking about midfielders who have already begun winning the hard ball and racking up quality disposals. I was speaking of defenders who have been able to hold their own against quality forwards. I was speaking of forwards who have shown they can kick 4-5 goals in a game whilst also being good lead-up options.

Yes we are still behind most of the competition, but this year we laid a lot of groundwork (which includes securing picks 1 and 2) which should lead to a rapid rise in performance.

I'm not sure if I've gone into too much depth for you here, chad, it seems as if you'd rather just compare teams based on their ladder position and past premierships.

Port do We have won one in the past 30 years hehe.

What was my question? IIRC it was who looks closer to winning a premiership, although your answer suggests I may have worded the question badly or something.

 

[Juddy88]

Port do We have won one in the past 30 years hehe.

Lol no, just no.

Port are in shambles, crisis time. Key players wanting to leave, questions over the coach.

Bottom 4 next year won't help that either.

 

[Schulzenfest]

So, yeah. DT forwards ...

 

[SkankDanker]

One area Melbourne did improve was their ability to "send messages". They sent a message by dropping Robbo (would Geelong have dropped Stevie J for kicking the ball off the ground).

They sent a message that it is never too late to try Whelan at Full Forward - maybe in his last game?

I could go on but I think trying to say a team that finished bottom improved because some individuals improved is off the mark. Surely the team improving regardless of the individuals is more important.

I understand both sides of the argument but without wanting to stir tooooo much, improvement is a subjective thing. The Melbourne supporters think they improved because they understood the motives for the flagrant and outrageous tanking that I am sure they got up Carlton for a few years ago. Bailey is pretty good at it btw, so there was some improvement there.

So let me pose the question: because Muston, Dowler, McGlynn and some other youngsters such as Moss, Whitecross, Shiels and kennedy improved, are Hawthorn better this year? If not why not? Surely you are not going by ladder position?

Did Freo improve? What other teams showed improvement? Geelong? How?

If it is just a feel based on watching the game, that is fine but it is your opinion. I am sure if Melbourne had jumped from 16th to 12th everyone would be saying they had improved even if had been the James McDonalds and Wheatleys who had been behind that improvement.

 

[Beau_Waters for PM]

So, yeah. DT forwards ...

I hear Travis Cloke and Angus Monfries are ready to take the next step in 2010...

 

[chadleverington]

It isn't just about ladder placement. Port statistically went up the ladder this year, but i think everyone would agree there was no improvement overall.

I certainly agree that there we quite a few players you mention that took a step forward, but you can say that about every team. Port were woeful this year, but i think Boak, Surjan, Krakouer, Salter and Gray improved this year and are "potential youngsters". Does this mean port improved?

Dont really appreciate the primary school insult, but instead of being immature and slinging insults i will move past it.

we will agree to disagree Ausyid

Lol no, just no.

Port are in shambles, crisis time. Key players wanting to leave, questions over the coach.

Bottom 4 next year won't help that either.

Absolutely all over the shop.
"Key Players wanting to leave". Shaun and....... Is it a key player or key players?

where are the questions over choco?

Willing to put money on us not being in the bottom 4 next year. True home games should get us enough wins to avoid the bottom 4.

 

[LemmingMaster]

(p.s. we are getting a little off topic of DT forwards now

I would strongly recommend you stop, think and rethink your posts before hitting the submit button.

Melbourne are IMPROVING and moving towards a premiership. I can honestly say that I would prefer to have Melbournes list, coach and team harmony over the Power, any day of the year.

Port Adelaide are in a heap of trouble at the moment, they've actually gone backwards in many ways. The old saying of where there is smoke, there is fire. Well the smoke signals coming from the Port camp are massive, makes you wonder how big the fire is?

The Bulldogs in 2009 still have a chance of winning the premiership, Port are no chance. This in essence tells me that the Dogs are closer than the Power.

 

[SkankDanker]

I would strongly recommend you stop, think and rethink your posts before hitting the submit button.

Melbourne are IMPROVING and moving towards a premiership. I can honestly say that I would prefer to have Melbournes list, coach and team harmony over the Power, any day of the year.

Port Adelaide are in a heap of trouble at the moment, they've actually gone backwards in many ways. The old saying of where there is smoke, there is fire. Well the smoke signals coming from the Port camp are massive, makes you wonder how big the fire is?

The Bulldogs in 2009 still have a chance of winning the premiership, Port are no chance. This in essence tells me that the Dogs are closer than the Power.

Hang on why is any one opinion any more valid? And whichever team's list you would prefer to have does not win an argument does it?

I respect what you and Ausy are saying but even though it is irrelevant to the subject of DT forwards it is an interesting argument and shouldn't just be doused like that.

There is no doubt that improvement in a team leads to more DT prospects, but I am sure apart from Grimes and maybe Davey not many other Dees were popular (off the top of my head - maybe some had Green).

 

[chadleverington]

Final thing I will mention on the topic.

I think Skank probably summed up what i was saying better than I did.
"I think trying to say a team that finished bottom improved because some individuals improved is off the mark. Surely the team improving regardless of the individuals is more important."

We were discussing how teams that improve (hawks in 08 and saints in 09) had players DT averages rise, yes melbourne have some "promising youngsters" and you can name 5-6 players that had good years, but i can't quite see them in the top 3-4 next year (and meaning they will have a jump in DT scoring that we were talking about).

 

[LemmingMaster]

Hang on why is any one opinion any more valid? And whichever team's list you would prefer to have does not win an argument does it?

My heated debate was more based on my feeling that his post was a semi troll on some points.

Bulldogs v Port winning a premiership.... One is still in the finals and one is not.

The you still could not win 5 games... Well we all know why they could not win more than 5 games, kind of hard to win when your defence moves forward and you stop rotating players.

Relating this to 2010, there seems to be a correlation between a teams DT scores and the amount of games they win. Hence it is important to determine which teams should improve/move closer to a premiership and which teams may head backwards.

While I agree with parts of Chad's statements, improving is more than just having promising youngsters, but my god it does not hurt.
Combine those with comments like, are they any closer to a premiership... Well if anyone seriously does not think that the 2010 version of the Demons is NOT closer to a premiership than the 2009 version, they must have been watching a different game. Their young list is a year older, they have another two high draft picks. They have a major sponsor, seemly solid support of all levels. Most common indicators of team improvement are all there.

I also think improvement can even be based on off field issues as well. It seems that Melbourne have a solid board and support for the coach and his system. Port Adelaide seem to have a dysfunctional board and a coach that seems to have lost his team support. Top lined players that have been strong Williams supporters are wanting to leave? Something sounds strange there.

While we're all allowed to have an opinion, from an unbiased outsider, I think Melbourne have shown a heap of improvement. They managed to show enough for 2-3 Quarters only to lose the games. Perfect team work and execution.

Anyway, consider the thread derailed....

 

[LemmingMaster]

We were discussing how teams that improve (hawks in 08 and saints in 09) had players DT averages rise, yes melbourne have some "promising youngsters" and you can name 5-6 players that had good years, but i can't quite see them in the top 3-4 next year (and meaning they will have a jump in DT scoring that we were talking about).

I completely agree with many parts of your post chad. I cannot see the Demons jumping into the top 8, hence you may not want to load up on their players. In saying that, their cash cows may be a good option as they're really looking to blood many youngsters in the coming years.

You would hope that certain players may actually be played in their correct positions, more rotations allowing higher DT points... There could be some value in certain Melbourne players due to their gameplan in 2009.

 

[Ausyid]

I was only arguing with Chad's initial and follow-on statements that Melbourne hadn't shown improvement. Although the fact that Chad is now saying that it's irrelevant because we won't be top 3-4 next year has shown me that this debate is going nowhere.

I think Tarq summed it up pretty well. Melbourne have made a giant improvement, and that is not a matter of opinion. Although Skank makes some good points as well.



Anyway....what do you guys think about Chris Knights for DT next year if he's named a forward (which he should be)???

**thread back on track**

 

[chadleverington]

really like chris knights as a player (and Adelaide could be one of the teams that jumps into the top 4 in my opinion) which may help his average. In the past i haven't look at him as a mid only because i worried about his durability (same as Salopek for me, durability questions). Knights as a FWD and Salopek as a Bac does that improve their value even with the durability question mark? Or is knights durable enough and I am wrong about questioning his durability?

Certainly one to keep an eye on though over pre season.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Knights will be high on many peoples radar, as you said durability could be the main issue. It may be a Chapman styled decision, take the upside with the durability question marks.

 

[chadleverington]

There seem quite a few 300-350k players in my option that could present value in the forward line. Players like LeCras, Rioli, Medhurst, Ziebell, Stokes, J Riewoldt, Nathan G Brown (if he finds a home), possibly Sidebottom.

This is making me wonder if i 5-6 of these "upper mid priced" players and not have a genuine gun (the voldt for example).

 

[LemmingMaster]

Ziebell
Nathan G Brown

One of these is an injury waiting to happen.
The other player is an old man waiting to be dropped.

 

[Walesy]

I just don't know about Medhurst. Looking at just the figures, his 80+ years looks the anomaly perhaps?

Kinda like Lade back in 06.

 

[SkankDanker]

One of these is an injury waiting to happen.
The other player is an old man waiting to be dropped.

Does Ziebell have a history of injuries? I legit don't know. He is a very impressive player.

Agree about NGB, much as I hate to say it he's probably gone and a change of club (if it happens) won't help.

 

[Crows88]

I just don't know about Medhurst. Looking at just the figures, his 80+ years looks the anomaly perhaps?

Kinda like Lade back in 06.

Yep agreed Walesy.

It doesn't help that he got dropped for this weekend, major question marks for next year you would think.

 

[Beau_Waters for PM]

really like chris knights as a player (and Adelaide could be one of the teams that jumps into the top 4 in my opinion) which may help his average. In the past i haven't look at him as a mid only because i worried about his durability (same as Salopek for me, durability questions). Knights as a FWD and Salopek as a Bac does that improve their value even with the durability question mark? Or is knights durable enough and I am wrong about questioning his durability?

Certainly one to keep an eye on though over pre season.

Knights will be high on many peoples radar, as you said durability could be the main issue. It may be a Chapman styled decision, take the upside with the durability question marks.

Except Chapman had more upside than Knights. For me, Knights' injury history is a bit of a worry, especially considering he is currently priced at around an 83 average, so you're drafting him as a keeper (if he was priced at 60s then I'd be more inclined to take the punt and overlook a poor injury history).

If he misses 2-3 games then you'll want an average of low 90s to compensate for the missed games. There's also a chance that if he picks up an injury he could be out for 4+ weeks, meaning you'll probably want to trade him. Seems like a lot of risk at this early stage.