Picks 21 and 22 options

[plugger66]

I reckon Lennys highlights wouldn't have been as good as LJ Conners. And im sure if they had a draft camp back then he would have tested very poorly in a few areas. I will take notice of the people who see more than one highlights package.

Except that Lenny went pick 11 and Elijay 70.

So Lenny's highlights would have been miles better than Elijays. Hence he got picked up at 11 - which is light years ahead of 70.

They also have better video technology nowadays. So I think Lenny's highlights would have been outstanding and exciting if he was 17yo now.

Its not just about highlights alone or test results alone.. Clearly Nakers looks like he can play footy and clearly he has the athletic tools.

I don't think you get it at all Con. He went 11 because people had seen him play and didn't just look at highlights. If they did he wouldn't have gone 11 and the types of you who are sucked in by highlights would have been appalled at the decision to take him. He couldn't mark, he was slow, he didn't kick goals. All it would show is great tackling, great baulking and a very good kick. EL video would show a good kick with great pace and could kick a goal. It would also show he was no good over head. What highlights videos don't show is what is in their heart and brain and more also their lowlights. Highlights videos are very overrated. Luckily recruiters see more than highlights videos.

No I dont think you get it.
Lenny would have good highlights. Better than Elijay. Because he was a much better player. A professional recruiter would be able to tell that Lenny was a better player than Elijay from looking at vision because they know what they are looking for.Its also not rocket science (despite what they sometimes try to make out).

Noone has said we should only pick anyone just on highlights. So dont create a strawman out of that.
But lenny still would have had good highlights. Noone is suggesting we would have picked him on highlights alone - but reality is he would have had good highlights cos he was a good player and dominated in his age group (Morrish medalist).

I would also suggest recruiters would need to rely on video footage to some extent in a national comp. They cant go to every game everywhere. If they only chose on live games alone - it would result in massive biases towards local players and a rubbish list. Any side who did that would be no good.

Id say the recruiters would have only seen Acres play live only once or twice if it all before we picked him top 20 given he lived in perth and was injured most of the year.

But either way - Lenny still would have had better highlights than Elijay.

I also understand the Eagles and Norf are interested in Nakia - so maybe call them up and tell them they are idiots.

Who said we shouldn't take this guy. I think you forget what you actually write or what Dave wrote. I couldn't be bothered looking but one of you said we should get this guy based on one highlights package. That was my point all along. Seriously Con its like talking to a dead person. Law my arse. Comedian more likely. As for your comment on Acres well to be honest I think that shows how naïve you are. These guys could be looked at for 3 or 4 years. Not all of them but certainly many of them. And I still say you would have no idea if Lenny would have a better highlights package than LJ. Its about 2 minutes of maybe 40 games. If Justin Sweeney played TAC cup his highlights package would be amazing because he could jump on peoples head. We would be going off tap. The problem is it doesn't show how lazy he was or how much he smoked or how late for training he was all the time. I will still say highlights packages mean jack unless they at least show low lights packages and more importantly speak to old coaches and interview the player.

[Dave McNamara]

PPS: I knew you'd like the Birchell assessment, Pluggs. And I stand by it.
Put a good marking forward on him to actually make him accountable, and lets see how he goes.
His type are very, very exploitable.

Wow. That is an innovation. Put some on Brichall to make him accountable. No other coach would have tried that.

I have two possible answers to that, Pluggs.

1/ To my ongoing amazement there are still some coaches who don't seem to have worked that out re the likes of Birchell.
(Nick Maxwell was another great example... put someone one him man on man, to make him actually accountable for a forward, c/f being free to zone off and do the third, fourth, eighty-second man up thing..., and he would be found wanting.
The artist formally known as Prince Harry O'Brien is another one... the 2010 drawn GF being a good example.)

2/ To my ongoing amazement and frustration there are still some players who don't seem to have worked that out re the likes of Birchell.
Our manta of kick-it-to-Nick-even-if-he-has-37-opponents-yet-other-blokes-are-free-right-in-front-of-goal is the best (worst ) example I can think of.


We've discussed the Dawks 2012 vs now. One noticeable difference (that I'm confident everyone can agree on ) is their development of multiple forward targets to compensate for no Buddy Ego (first through injury, now through mercenary).

Mutiple dangerous forward targets makes the the defenders of the ilk menitoned in this thread accountable...
and surprise, surprise... finds many of them out.

This is one big reason why I want Petracca... he will provide a very dangerous and hard to match-up on forward target.
On ballers who can also be dangerous up forward are one of Port's major strengths... and very noticeably, this (not their key forwards) was what almost pinched that PF from the Dawks. (Starting to see where I'm heading yet, Pluggs? )

(To our Petracca, I'd add the likes of Bruce, Membrey, Billings, Acres, Dunstan, Armo', and hopefully Lee and Sippa. We are going to be a very very exciting team in a couple of seasons. )


Putting it all together...

Mid fielders who can alsorest up forward, and provide multiple dangerous forward marking targets are the way to go IMHO, because...
- They make defenders who rely upon peeling-off their man... have to be accountable one-on-one.
- This then finds out many of these blokes. Recievers are very very exploitable. Recievers = liabiltiy.
- This also reduces opposition run out of the backline.
- This also makes it harder to multi-team key forwards like Roo.

Therefore, a multi pronged forward line is very very telling on a number of fronts. And why?

Because... recievers are very very exploitable. Recievers = liabiltiy.




Your turn, Pluggs and anyone else.

[plugger66]

PPS: I knew you'd like the Birchell assessment, Pluggs. And I stand by it.
Put a good marking forward on him to actually make him accountable, and lets see how he goes.
His type are very, very exploitable.

Wow. That is an innovation. Put some on Brichall to make him accountable. No other coach would have tried that.

I have two possible answers to that, Pluggs.

1/ To my ongoing amazement there are still some coaches who don't seem to have worked that out re the likes of Birchell.
(Nick Maxwell was another great example... put someone one him man on man, to make him actually accountable for a forward, c/f being free to zone off and do the third, fourth, eighty-second man up thing..., and he would be found wanting.
The artist formally known as Prince Harry O'Brien is another one... the 2010 drawn GF being a good example.)

2/ To my ongoing amazement and frustration there are still some players who don't seem to have worked that out re the likes of Birchell.
Our manta of kick-it-to-Nick-even-if-he-has-37-opponents-yet-other-blokes-are-free-right-in-front-of-goal is the best (worst ) example I can think of.


We've discussed the Dawks 2012 vs now. One noticeable difference (that I'm confident everyone can agree on ) is their development of multiple forward targets to compensate for no Buddy Ego (first through injury, now through mercenary).

Mutiple dangerous forward targets makes the the defenders of the ilk menitoned in this thread accountable...
and surprise, surprise... finds many of them out.

This is one big reason why I want Petracca... he will provide a very dangerous and hard to match-up on forward target.
On ballers who can also be dangerous up forward are one of Port's major strengths... and very noticeably, this (not their key forwards) was what almost pinched that PF from the Dawks. (Starting to see where I'm heading yet, Pluggs? )

(To our Petracca, I'd add the likes of Bruce, Membrey, Billings, Acres, Dunstan, Armo', and hopefully Lee and Sippa. We are going to be a very very exciting team in a couple of seasons. )


Putting it all together...

Mid fielders who can alsorest up forward, and provide multiple dangerous forward marking targets are the way to go IMHO, because...
- They make defenders who rely upon peeling-off their man... have to be accountable one-on-one.
- This then finds out many of these blokes. Recievers are very very exploitable. Recievers = liabiltiy.
- This also reduces opposition run out of the backline.
- This also makes it harder to multi-team key forwards like Roo.

Therefore, a multi pronged forward line is very very telling on a number of fronts. And why?

Because... recievers are very very exploitable. Recievers = liabiltiy.




Your turn, Pluggs and anyone else.

Most of that makes sense but I don't think you get the receiver bit. O'Brien, Maxwell and Birchell have been vital in the biggest game of the year so they aren't liabilities and secondly you cant call them receivers and then claim Billings isn't. Its far to one eyed. Billings is an outside or a receiver player. Nothing wrong with that at all.

As for the Hawks, I gather its the Hawks even though you used some dumb name, having a multiple attack that is true but they haven't changed the way they use the ball and they still play footy with less contested possessions than nearly every other side. That is why Birchell, Stratton, Guerra and others are so important to their side. They all win there own ball because every AFL player does but they also receive it more than most other players. Im happy to get Petracca but I also want 2 or 3 outside, receiver types with pace. Its vital. We don't need anymore inside mids.

[Dave McNamara]

Most of that makes sense but I don't think you get the receiver bit. O'Brien, Maxwell and Birchell have been vital in the biggest game of the year so they aren't liabilities and secondly you cant call them receivers and then claim Billings isn't. Its far to one eyed. Billings is an outside or a receiver player. Nothing wrong with that at all.

As for the Hawks, I gather its the Hawks even though you used some dumb name, having a multiple attack that is true but they haven't changed the way they use the ball and they still play footy with less contested possessions than nearly every other side. That is why Birchell, Stratton, Guerra and others are so important to their side. They all win there own ball because every AFL player does but they also receive it more than most other players. Im happy to get Petracca but I also want 2 or 3 outside, receiver types with pace. Its vital. We don't need anymore inside mids.

We're getting closer on this one, Pluggs.

I still reckon our main point of difference is whether all AFL players, when required, can go and win their own contested footy, or not.






(And looking back at my last post, another point of difference seems to be that only one of us can spell 'receiver'. )

[plugger66]

Most of that makes sense but I don't think you get the receiver bit. O'Brien, Maxwell and Birchell have been vital in the biggest game of the year so they aren't liabilities and secondly you cant call them receivers and then claim Billings isn't. Its far to one eyed. Billings is an outside or a receiver player. Nothing wrong with that at all.

As for the Hawks, I gather its the Hawks even though you used some dumb name, having a multiple attack that is true but they haven't changed the way they use the ball and they still play footy with less contested possessions than nearly every other side. That is why Birchell, Stratton, Guerra and others are so important to their side. They all win there own ball because every AFL player does but they also receive it more than most other players. Im happy to get Petracca but I also want 2 or 3 outside, receiver types with pace. Its vital. We don't need anymore inside mids.

We're getting closer on this one, Pluggs.

I still reckon our main point of difference is whether all AFL players, when required, can go and win their own contested footy, or not.






(And looking back at my last post, another point of difference seems to be that only one of us can spell 'receiver'. )

I don't think I have argued anything else maybe apart from outside or recievers being important to our club.

[Con Gorozidis]

Does any body know which team invited Brett Eddy to the combine? He looked a player when he was at the pies VFL but did a knee. I saw him go well in some of the draft combine results and I think he's only about 24 or so. Any interest from us? Could be a Wilkes style fill in while the others build up in the VFL.

BUMP

Brett Eddy is still playing good footy and still a chance to be drafted.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-15/m ... te-leagues

Brett Eddy
South Adelaide
194cm/89kg
26/8/89
Eddy won an invitation to last year's national draft combine and showed his classy ball use with top-10 finishes in the kicking and clean hands test. The powerful tall forward uses his strength and size to outbody and outmaneuver opponents, and has booted 43 goals in 13 games for South Adelaide this year. He is an excellent set shot for goal.