List Mgmt. The Official Cam McCarthy Superultramega Thread - Deal done!

[Ysaye]

Realistically I think Cam, 7, 31 & 33 for 3 & 39 is about right. We then use 31 & 33 and Mayne compo to help secure Hill, Hamling & Kersten.

7 & 14 plus Cam for 3 would be lovey though.

When you say this, you don't mean trading on 31 and 33 further do you?

Because that would mean we would have pick 7 then have to wait till round 4 and beyond to still pick up around 4 players to make up for our delistings. I think the draft is deep but that is asking too much of it. Under that scenario I would be prepared to spend one of those picks on Hamling under sufferance, but then Kersten would need to be the pick 50ish. That would still leave us with:
Pick 7
Pick 31
Pick 60ish (say 60)
Pick 80ish. (Say 78)
Pick 90ish (Say 94) (Assume this might be for Deluca back onto main list or other rookie upgrade)

Not really great blocks with which to rebuild, are they?

The more I look at it, the more it is that we won't be able to get all four players of Hill, McCarthy, Kersten and Hamling unless Kersten and/or Hamling is a trade of players not picks. But with Barlow, Clarke and Silvagni
staying, apart from a Balic / Collins trade I can't see it happening...so it is unlikely.

 

[mike91]

When you say this, you don't mean trading on 31 and 33 further do you?

Because that would mean we would have pick 7 then have to wait till round 4 and beyond to still pick up around 4 players to make up for our delistings. I think the draft is deep but that is asking too much of it. Under that scenario I would be prepared to spend one of those picks on Hamling under sufferance, but then Kersten would need to be the pick 50ish. That would still leave us with:
Pick 7
Pick 31
Pick 60ish (say 60)
Pick 80ish. (Say 78)
Pick 90ish (Say 94) (Assume this might be for Deluca back onto main list or other rookie upgrade)

Not really great blocks with which to rebuild, are they?

The more I look at it, the more it is that we won't be able to get all four players of Hill, McCarthy, Kersten and Hamling unless Kersten and/or Hamling is a trade of players not picks. But with Barlow, Clarke and Silvagni
staying, apart from a Balic / Collins trade I can't see it happening...so it is unlikely.

Probably not the best of examples

I personally don't want the club trading away #3, but hypothetically lets say we traded it and #39 for #7, 31, 33 and McCarthy, then I can see #31 and #33 being used for Kersten and Hamling. Personally, I hope we secure one of them with #48 (Ballas trade) if this scenario were to unfold and keep an early 30's pick. Trade Maynes compo for Hill. Bang, all four players.

 

[Ysaye]

Probably not the best of examples

I personally don't want the club trading away #3, but hypothetically lets say we traded it and #39 for #7, 31, 33 and McCarthy, then I can see #31 and #33 being used for Kersten and Hamling. Personally, I hope we secure one of them with #48 (Ballas trade) if this scenario were to unfold and keep an early 30's pick. Trade Maynes compo for Hill. Bang, all four players.

Yes but totally screwed in terms of draft picks - I can't see them doing that.

 

[Lach72]

Yes but totally screwed in terms of draft picks - I can't see them doing that.

But you end up with 4 best 22 players.
Why is that an issue?

 

[Ysaye]

But you end up with 4 best 22 players.
Why is that an issue?

Simply - success requires more than just a nominal best 22 on paper (that rarely play together because of inevitable injury); it requires a balanced list. If this is a three year process to get to the top, those players we develop over that time period need to have enough talent to contribute to the team. Krigers, Cunninghams and Striblings won't serve much of a purpose on the senior list.

 

[Lach72]

Simply - success requires more than just a nominal best 22 on paper (that rarely play together because of inevitable injury); it requires a balanced list. If this is a three year process to get to the top, those players we develop over that time period need to have enough talent to contribute to the team. Krigers, Cunninghams and Striblings won't serve much of a purpose on the senior list.

These players balance the list. Not sure what you're on about

 

[Taylor]

Currently our list looks like this (no delistings or retirements):

34 year old x 1
33 year old x 1
31 year old x 2
30 year old x 4
29 year old x 3
28 year old x 2
27 year old x 2
26 year old x 4
25 year old x 4
24 year old x 4
23 year old x 2
22 year old x 4
21 year old x 5
20 year old x 5
19 year old x 2

There is a stat that shows most of the successful teams lately have a large portion of their players above 28 years old, but I think that is a symptom of the reality - more younger players means more go on to be 200 game stars, more stars means better teams - we only need 7 or 8 stars to be a gun side.

 

[FUS_RO_DAH]

Comeoooooooon somebody do a trade I can't wait any longer

 

[Puregold]

Comeoooooooon somebody do a trade I can't wait any longer

Doesnt start until 10am est

 

[FUS_RO_DAH]

Doesnt start until 10am est

... Oops.

 

[Demons09]

Simply - success requires more than just a nominal best 22 on paper (that rarely play together because of inevitable injury); it requires a balanced list. If this is a three year process to get to the top, those players we develop over that time period need to have enough talent to contribute to the team. Krigers, Cunninghams and Striblings won't serve much of a purpose on the senior list.

Who said this is a three year process I expect them to be knocking on the eight next year.

 

[Mr Peabody]

There is a stat that shows most of the successful teams lately have a large portion of their players above 28 years old, but I think that is a symptom of the reality - more younger players means more go on to be 200 game stars, more stars means better teams - we only need 7 or 8 stars to be a gun side.

Age Spread and Games Experience are interesting to analyse across the top teams as compared to our list as it stood at the completion of the 2015 season.
Surprised at the relative youth of the Sydney list with 63% of their list at 25 years or younger as well as their low average games of experience at 69.
We'll look rather different after the changes are factored in - the below numbers are a snapshot of the 2015 lists so ours includes Pav, Mzungu etc.

 

[Rion]

Age Spread and Games Experience are interesting to analyse across the top teams as compared to our list as it stood at the completion of the 2015 season.
Surprised at the relative youth of the Sydney list with 63% of their list at 25 years or younger as well as their low average games of experience at 69.
We'll look rather different after the changes are factored in - the below numbers are a snapshot of the 2015 lists so ours includes Pav, Mzungu etc.

View attachment 298398

Bit deceptive though. After this period with some combination of Kersten/Hamling/McCarthy/Hill + a couple of draft picks we will probably be right in the mix there.

 

[Silent Alarm]

we only need 7 or 8 stars to be a gun side.

Errrrrrr this is insight?

Next you'll tell me we just need to kick more goals than the opponent.

We have, what, Fyfe and Neale as the players you'd be confident to have a great game every week. Who else is there? Sandilands doesn't count; he's got a year, two max, remaining as a player and even then I could name six or seven, eight, nine rucks I'd prefer over him.

Of course we need more stars but that is literally the point of this time of year, and of AFL football. Unfortunately that isn't very easy. A genuinely great player moves maybe twice every trade period: Kersten, Hill, McCarthy ain't in the top 10 or so in their positions.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Bit deceptive though. After this period with some combination of Kersten/Hamling/McCarthy/Hill + a couple of draft picks we will probably be right in the mix there.

I realise that. I've updated it to show how we look after the 10 delistings and before any trades/draftees.

 

[freo_leo29]

Errrrrrr this is insight?

Next you'll tell me we just need to kick more goals than the opponent.

We have, what, Fyfe and Neale as the players you'd be confident to have a great game every week. Who else is there? Sandilands doesn't count; he's got a year, two max, remaining as a player and even then I could name six or seven, eight, nine rucks I'd prefer over him.

Of course we need more stars but that is literally the point of this time of year, and of AFL football. Unfortunately that isn't very easy. A genuinely great player moves maybe twice every trade period: Kersten, Hill, McCarthy ain't in the top 10 or so in their positions.

Short memory about sandilands? Still the best ruckman in the league or at very very least top 3

Fyfe, neale, bennell, sandi, Shill is a good start to our star players
With some youngsters possible to step up in the next few years AP, Blakely, weller

 

[Silent Alarm]

Sandilands was a good tap ruckman but he was never versatile enough to be as hyped as he was.

He dropped marks constantly so you couldn't play him as our much needed second forward. He was also scared of kicking and used to give off every single mark he did manage to take (I'm surprised opposition coaches didn't ever really switch onto this) and outside of a ruck contest he really didn't do much at all. You look at Lobb or even Gawn, who drift forward and can kick a few goals, and make leads out on the ground. Mumford is extremely physical and uses his body well in general play – lays shepherds, helps the little rovers in congestion get free, and even his presence helps other guys because he's always backing up the younger blokes in jumper punches and stuff like that.

 

[Bicco]

Sandilands was a good tap ruckman but he was never versatile enough to be as hyped as he was.

He dropped marks constantly so you couldn't play him as our much needed second forward. He was also scared of kicking and used to give off every single mark he did manage to take (I'm surprised opposition coaches didn't ever really switch onto this) and outside of a ruck contest he really didn't do much at all. You look at Lobb or even Gawn, who drift forward and can kick a few goals, and make leads out on the ground. Mumford is extremely physical and uses his body well in general play – lays shepherds, helps the little rovers in congestion get free, and even his presence helps other guys because he's always backing up the younger blokes in jumper punches and stuff like that.

Haselby was the best of few who could take advantage of Sandilands dominance. I agree that Sandilands around the ground has never filled his potential. With the ball going straight up consistently due to throw ups and not bounce ups, the big bulky ruckman that can hold his ground is becoming less important. Third man up will become more common. Disagree that there's 9 better ruckman though. That may change.

 

[Nickos66]

Pick 7?! screw that, I want pick 5 in any McCarthy trade involving our pick 3. That could mean the difference in is getting or missing out on SPS.

 

[mightymouse75]

Pick 7 and 15. And macca. Delicious

 

[Rion]

Pick 7?! screw that, I want pick 5 in any McCarthy trade involving our pick 3. That could mean the difference in is getting or missing out on SPS.

They won't have pick 5 to give to us.

 

[holy diver]

Then we wait.

 

[Nickos66]

They won't have pick 5 to give to us.

They will in a matter of days... Maybe a week, if we can be patient.

 

[Frank J Moose]

Sandilands was a good tap ruckman but he was never versatile enough to be as hyped as he was.

He dropped marks constantly so you couldn't play him as our much needed second forward. He was also scared of kicking and used to give off every single mark he did manage to take (I'm surprised opposition coaches didn't ever really switch onto this) and outside of a ruck contest he really didn't do much at all. You look at Lobb or even Gawn, who drift forward and can kick a few goals, and make leads out on the ground. Mumford is extremely physical and uses his body well in general play – lays shepherds, helps the little rovers in congestion get free, and even his presence helps other guys because he's always backing up the younger blokes in jumper punches and stuff like that.

Sandilands over the past decade has taken more contested marks than any other ruckman. His around the ground work was way underrated. He forced the other ruckmen to defend him. Cox never had any influence in Derbys when Sandilands played. Its why we won so many in a row. His inside clearance work and creating space is elite. The amount of times or forwards scored directly from f50 stoppages (within two possessions) more than made up for the non marks on the arm hacks.

And Sandilands was almost never out marked in exit kicks limiting repeat inside 50 by the opponents. Note how many times that happened this season.

Totally underrated for his around the ground impact.

 

[Moo]

If we don't hit the mid rounds of the draft - our depth comes increases from a combination of the players pushed out of the best 22 & the growth of youngsters.

Sandilands was a good tap ruckman but he was never versatile enough to be as hyped as he was.

He dropped marks constantly so you couldn't play him as our much needed second forward. He was also scared of kicking and used to give off every single mark he did manage to take (I'm surprised opposition coaches didn't ever really switch onto this) and outside of a ruck contest he really didn't do much at all. You look at Lobb or even Gawn, who drift forward and can kick a few goals, and make leads out on the ground. Mumford is extremely physical and uses his body well in general play – lays shepherds, helps the little rovers in congestion get free, and even his presence helps other guys because he's always backing up the younger blokes in jumper punches and stuff like that.

Sandi's other strength is being a 7 + foot deterrent to teams simply kicking it down the line as a bail out kick......we will miss the big lunk when he's gone (especially as the understudy is not singing real well ATM)