Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
What chances Laverde?

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> The Draft & Trade Moot (DTM) forum
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gurugeoff 



Joined: 09 Oct 2013


PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:48 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Breadcrawl wrote:

It's a lottery. The 'best available' stance assumes that the perceived order of quality is close to the actual order of quality. It like, never is.

Tall players are particularly hard to spot as juniors. Even Reid and Brown who have been good players would not be in the top ten players of that draft. Neither would Scott Gumbleton (pick 2) or Lachlan Hansen (pick 3). Kurt Tippett was 32 and Todd Goldstein was 37. Goldsack was 63 and Justin Westhoff was 71. Jessie White was 79. Mitch Thorp was 6.

Meanwhile Gibbs, Boak, Selwood, Armitage - the mids taken in the top 10 - all solid to elite players.



an excellent analysis. The draft order of any year versus the eventual rating of that draft year is so completely askew that it would seem that exposed form as a junior counts for absolutely nothing.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
themonk 



Joined: 02 Mar 2004


PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:00 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

gurugeoff wrote:
Breadcrawl wrote:

It's a lottery. The 'best available' stance assumes that the perceived order of quality is close to the actual order of quality. It like, never is.

Tall players are particularly hard to spot as juniors. Even Reid and Brown who have been good players would not be in the top ten players of that draft. Neither would Scott Gumbleton (pick 2) or Lachlan Hansen (pick 3). Kurt Tippett was 32 and Todd Goldstein was 37. Goldsack was 63 and Justin Westhoff was 71. Jessie White was 79. Mitch Thorp was 6.

Meanwhile Gibbs, Boak, Selwood, Armitage - the mids taken in the top 10 - all solid to elite players.




an excellent analysis. The draft order of any year versus the eventual rating of that draft year is so completely askew that it would seem that exposed form as a junior counts for absolutely nothing.


Am I missing something here? Reid was pick 8 & Brown pick 10
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
AN_Inkling 



Joined: 06 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:21 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Breadcrawl wrote:
I see the arguments as connected because if we had a need for a tall then I would consider it a necessary risk. Because we have what I see as the opposite of a need (a potential problem) I don't think the risk is justified.

It's all moot anyway coz we ain't making any calls Stup ;D

I hope GWS take Wright at 4 as that should mean we can have Laverde if Hine wants him


I'm actually not big on us drafting a tall either. I'd prefer a mid. And if there is a key position player and a midfield player we rate similarly I'd expect we'd take the latter. But if the tall is rated significantly above the other prospects we should not be shying away from him for balance reasons, that can lead to some terrible mistakes.

_________________
Well done boys!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Breadcrawl 



Joined: 14 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:31 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

AN_Inkling wrote:
Breadcrawl wrote:
I see the arguments as connected because if we had a need for a tall then I would consider it a necessary risk. Because we have what I see as the opposite of a need (a potential problem) I don't think the risk is justified.

It's all moot anyway coz we ain't making any calls Stup ;D

I hope GWS take Wright at 4 as that should mean we can have Laverde if Hine wants him


I'm actually not big on us drafting a tall either. I'd prefer a mid. And if there is a key position player and a midfield player we rate similarly I'd expect we'd take the latter. But if the tall is rated significantly above the other prospects we should not be shying away from him for balance reasons, that can lead to some terrible mistakes.


Yeah I'm happy with that position

_________________
they can smell what we're cookin'
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Warnings : 1 
Bob Sugar 



Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:40 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Breadcrawl wrote:
I see the arguments as connected because if we had a need for a tall then I would consider it a necessary risk. Because we have what I see as the opposite of a need (a potential problem) I don't think the risk is justified.

It's all moot anyway coz we ain't making any calls Stup ;D

I hope GWS take Wright at 4 as that should mean we can have Laverde if Hine wants him


I'd love to know how Hine rated Grundy in comparison to Wright, to me Grundy would get the nod because of his aggression, I just can't see him pulling the trigger on Wright a pick 5, but to be fair I don't think he would've drafted Grundy at 5 either.

_________________
Defender...........

On the day before the first, Daicos created God.

You like this.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Bob Sugar 



Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:48 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Just thinking out loud here, but has a 200cm+ KF ever kicked 100 goals in a season? I've known a few who were on track and there's been many promising ones, but for one reason or another they always break down.
_________________
Defender...........

On the day before the first, Daicos created God.

You like this.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Deja Vu 



Joined: 20 Apr 2008


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:55 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

If quality mids are so easy to come by then I would suggest we go and get one. You can never have enough elite midfielders and we are well stocked for key position players.

A great midfield can turn average forwards into All Australians (Cam Mooney says hi). Quality KPFs with poor delivery from a substandard midfield can look ordinary (Travis Cloke says hi).

If we swapped Roughead for Cloke, how many goals would they kick at their respective teams?

_________________
http://youtu.be/hvtdbfI1sqQ
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
E 



Joined: 05 May 2010


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:18 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

gurugeoff wrote:
Breadcrawl wrote:

It's a lottery. The 'best available' stance assumes that the perceived order of quality is close to the actual order of quality. It like, never is.

Tall players are particularly hard to spot as juniors. Even Reid and Brown who have been good players would not be in the top ten players of that draft. Neither would Scott Gumbleton (pick 2) or Lachlan Hansen (pick 3). Kurt Tippett was 32 and Todd Goldstein was 37. Goldsack was 63 and Justin Westhoff was 71. Jessie White was 79. Mitch Thorp was 6.

Meanwhile Gibbs, Boak, Selwood, Armitage - the mids taken in the top 10 - all solid to elite players.



yes, but the year that franklin and Roughhead were taken, Tambling was taken in the top 10 as well. for every hit there is a miss at just about every draft number. all that changes is that your probablitity goes up the higher you pick (that is your chance of a hit increases). given the increased professionalism of footballers and the recruiting process, its very rare for a top 10 to be an abject failure absent career type injuries. Look at the quality of the top 10 from last year.

an excellent analysis. The draft order of any year versus the eventual rating of that draft year is so completely askew that it would seem that exposed form as a junior counts for absolutely nothing.


The big issue here is that we are in a cat and mouse game with GWS whgo have us by the nuts! They have the two picks after us. what this means is that if they think we need a small, the can happily leave Wright on the board at 4 and go with the best small available since Wright will be there at number 6 and 7 for them! they are in a great spot.

Pies will need to show up with two mids they'd be happy to take, or somehow make GWS worry that wright would be ours if they pass on him.

Of course, that might actually be the case since wright seems like he could be groomed for CHF or CHB (just as Peter Moore could). so the pies could potentially lock up the two very important key positions for the next 15 years if GWS let's Wright through its fingers.

And lets face it, if we bottom out next year, then next year, we could pick up a couple of great mids (and it absolutely doesnt hurt to give your big guys an extra year of development over your little guys.

If we balls up 2015 and somehow snag two more top 10 picks, we would have a pretty formiddable pack of top 10 pick by 2016.

_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk .......
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
John Wren Virgo

"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."


Joined: 15 Jul 2007


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:32 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ that's way overthinking things. i don't think it matters who gws pick at 4 or even want at 6 & 7. the club will have ranked each player and planned for the different scenarios that could eventuate. if the preferred player is still available at 5 then you'd expect them to select him.
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
E 



Joined: 05 May 2010


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:51 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

John Wren wrote:
^ that's way overthinking things. i don't think it matters who gws pick at 4 or even want at 6 & 7. the club will have ranked each player and planned for the different scenarios that could eventuate. if the preferred player is still available at 5 then you'd expect them to select him.


No, its not. If GWS know that we are not interested in wright for example, that would be a very bad fact. They could leave Wright for pick 6 and take the guy that hine may have as his favorite player.

If on the other hand, GWS perceive even a slight risk that we would be happy to pounce on Wright if they let him go, then they will likely take him at 4 leaving us to pick the guy we want.

Its not a Huge Huge deal, but it does make some difference.

To wit, i understand Pendles was the twinkle in Hine's eye and would have gone number 1 if we only had one pick and it was number 1. however, Hine knew that Hawthorn were very serious about Daisy at number 3 and he was also relatively confident that Pendles would slip to 5 so he took Thomas at 2 and Pendles at 5, even though he rated Pendles the better player.

Draft manouvering is a very important part of draft day when teams have multiple picks in the same neighborhood as GWS does (and as we did in that particular case).

_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk .......
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Dr. Jinx 



Joined: 21 Oct 2014


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:40 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed that we should be going for Laverde but if he was to go at pick 4 I think the next best mid could be Lachie Weller!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Breadcrawl 



Joined: 14 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:17 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

E wrote:


To wit, i understand Pendles was the twinkle in Hine's eye and would have gone number 1 if we only had one pick and it was number 1. however, Hine knew that Hawthorn were very serious about Daisy at number 3 and he was also relatively confident that Pendles would slip to 5 so he took Thomas at 2 and Pendles at 5, even though he rated Pendles the better player.


Great point. Pendles rated higher by Hine but didn't take him at two. Because he expected him to still be there at 5, and didn't expect Daisy to still be there at 5.

Great, great point.

If GWS want Wright and Laverde, knowing the profile of our list, they have a better chance of securing both if they take Laverde at 4.

If they do, and in the process suck us into getting the next Justin Koschitzke when we weren't even after a tall...because he was the 'best available'...

_________________
they can smell what we're cookin'
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Warnings : 1 
swoop42 Virgo

Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?


Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:24 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps we would prefer Wright over Laverde.

Perhaps we would prefer Langford over Laverde.

Perhaps GWS have no idea at all who we are after.

The last one seems a most likely scenario don't you think.

Perhaps.

_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
RudeBoy 



Joined: 28 Nov 2005


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:32 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr. Jinx wrote:
Agreed that we should be going for Laverde but if he was to go at pick 4 I think the next best mid could be Lachie Weller!


Agreed.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
John Wren Virgo

"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."


Joined: 15 Jul 2007


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:54 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Breadcrawl wrote:
E wrote:


To wit, i understand Pendles was the twinkle in Hine's eye and would have gone number 1 if we only had one pick and it was number 1. however, Hine knew that Hawthorn were very serious about Daisy at number 3 and he was also relatively confident that Pendles would slip to 5 so he took Thomas at 2 and Pendles at 5, even though he rated Pendles the better player.


Great point. Pendles rated higher by Hine but didn't take him at two. Because he expected him to still be there at 5, and didn't expect Daisy to still be there at 5.

Great, great point.

If GWS want Wright and Laverde, knowing the profile of our list, they have a better chance of securing both if they take Laverde at 4.

If they do, and in the process suck us into getting the next Justin Koschitzke when we weren't even after a tall...because he was the 'best available'...


obviously, "best available" is a subjective thing. i don't think any posturing by gws will make a difference to whom we pick up.

_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> The Draft & Trade Moot (DTM) forum All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 4 of 9   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group