Player Watch Joel Cochran

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Ok, I have done a little bit of research on Cochran from the few swans supporters I know, living in sydney as i do.

Just realise that this is a player they just lost, so they are not going to be too positive on him. Possibly take with a grain of salt.

Strengths: Superb athlete.

Weaknesses: His kicking is not great (the word used was loopy), he is not the best at one-on-one defending and as per his strengths he is probably more of an athlete than a footballer.

We will have to see how he develops, I guess. How we can use his athletic prowess, and improve any supposed weaknesses.

Welcome Joel.
 
The kicking looks so-so, it's the decision making that's the current concern and that's visible in just the snippets of video floating around. As someone else said, often bites off more than he can chew.

If he can use his height, speed and marking but then settle down, he'll be better with good players around him. I wouldn't ever want to see him in the same backline as Frampton though.
 
We obviously had done a fair bit of work on him. Like his ability to intercept mark, get the ball off to a teammate and then continue to run to create the option to receive the ball back. So looks a good athletic, rangy key back with good endurance, whilst having a good pair hands....Welcome to the Pies, Joel...⚪️⚫️⚪️⚫️
 
TradeDraft said:
Swans don't rate him - Why?
Click to expand...

Every player has their unique strengths and weaknesses.

Every team has their unique list needs. And player traits they value. And internal culture. And risk profile.

The fact that they didn’t just means that the Swans thought that another player(s) (Riak Andrew) fitted better within their own list needs and/or had traits they valued more and/or would be more suited to their own culture and/or fitted their risk profile.
 
Jen2310 said:
Welcome Joel! I was surprised swans didn't match, but good height, athletic, can run, can mark. Traits to work with
Click to expand...
They wanted Andrew all along and then didn't have any list spots for Cochran. If Melbourne matched Andrew, they would've taken Cochran. The other thing is why didn't Melbourne match Andrew
 
Dead Eye Didak said:
We obviously had done a fair bit of work on him. Like his ability to intercept mark, get the ball off to a teammate and then continue to run to create the option to receive the ball back. So looks a good athletic, rangy key back with good endurance, whilst having a good pair hands....Welcome to the Pies, Joel...️️️️
Click to expand...

Well now you’re making him sound like Crisp when we traded for him. Rangy runner with an offensive mindset and suspect kicking!
 
manicpie said:
They wanted Andrew all along and then didn't have any list spots for Cochran. If Melbourne matched Andrew, they would've taken Cochran. The other thing is why didn't Melbourne match Andrew
Click to expand...

Cochrane had already gone to us by the time they attempted to pick Andrew (and succeeded)

Melbourne still had a list spot at that point (pick 68) so Melbourne weren’t guaranteed to pass on Andrew. Unless Swans knew something via tradecraft means.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

For the time being , I see him as a future howe replacement. Given his current size, he is currently a 3rd tall defender/intercept marker/ rebounder.

Once be fills out his size, he can take over the second defender role behind moore.
 
I wonder if these later picked defenders really develop their attacking capabilities as a necessity to stand out and make it on to a list.

Johncock - pick 67
Kade simpson - 45
Cale hooker - 54
Michael Johnson - psd
Ben stratton - 46
James sicily - 56
Justin westhoff (when he played as a defender) - 71
Dan houston - rookie
Sam Fisher- 55
Nick Malceski - 64
Jeremy mcgovern - rookie
Easton wood- 43
Jason johannisen - rookie
 
There were clues ahead of the draft that we were going to pick up Joel Cochrane.

At one stage we held picks 52, 55 and 58.

We traded that pick 58 to Brisbane for 60 and 66.

Why would we do that trade given that we didn’t have the list spot to use that pick 66 ourselves? Clearly we assessed that Brisbane at 58 and whoever had pick 59 were not going to interfere with our draft plans, which would mean that pick 60 was as good as 58 as far as we were concerned. And we’d get pick 66 as a small tradeable commodity for nothing.

It was Swans who had that pick 59. Which they could have used on any available player (including Cochrane if he were available)

But if Collingwood picked up Cochrane at one of our earlier picks (back then 52 or 55) then one of two things would have happened

(1) Swans match bid, end up with Cochrane, and their pick 59 (between pick 58 which we traded out for pick 60) gets extinguished. And Collingwood pick someone else.

(2) Collingwood get Cochrane, and 59 is still live with the Swans. This is clearly what happened.

What we don’t know (and probably will never know) is whether Collingwood ever had any interest of picking up Miak Andrew with their 3rd pick. If we did, then that trade of our 58 for Brisbane’s 60 and 66 backfired. But it’d be no biggy, it’s hardly sheep stations that far down in the draft. And especially as we could not have known that Melbourne would have passed on bidding for Andrew.
 
Last edited:
manicpie said:
They wanted Andrew all along and then didn't have any list spots for Cochran. If Melbourne matched Andrew, they would've taken Cochran. The other thing is why didn't Melbourne match Andrew
Click to expand...
Yeah not sure why dees didnt match, they nominated him. Unless both swans and dees would rather get all of their players before matching a bid but even so, these players could cost so little.
 
Basil brush said:
Ok, I have done a little bit of research on Cochran from the few swans supporters I know, living in sydney as i do.

Just realise that this is a player they just lost, so they are not going to be too positive on him. Possibly take with a grain of salt.

Strengths: Superb athlete.

Weaknesses: His kicking is not great (the word used was loopy), he is not the best at one-on-one defending and as per his strengths he is probably more of an athlete than a footballer.

We will have to see how he develops, I guess. How we can use his athletic prowess, and improve any supposed weaknesses.

Welcome Joel.
Click to expand...
A mix of a young Nathan Murphy and young Jack Crisp
 
Jen2310 said:
Yeah not sure why dees didnt match, they nominated him. Unless both swans and dees would rather get all of their players before matching a bid but even so, these players could cost so little.
Click to expand...
That doesn't guarantee anything, it just leaves them with their options open. There was a young NGA prospect in 2018 that we nominated but ultimately didn't list - blanking on his name though.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Joel Cochran

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top